Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"—notes 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;

—commends the Government for the significant additional resources made available for the education of pupils with special educational needs; and welcomes the legislative and administrative measures being taken by the Government to improve the framework within which services are delivered to pupils with special educational needs, their parents and schools; and

—further acknowledges that there are over 4,000 more teachers in our primary schools and over 2,000 in our post-primary schools than there were in 1997, that these extra teaching resources have been used to reduce class sizes, to tackle educational disadvantage and to provide additional support for children with special needs, and that the Government is committed to reducing class sizes further."

Listening to the Deputies, I know we can have a constructive debate on this and I welcome the acknowledgment in the motion of the level of progress that has been made. It should also be noted that in the four months since we last discussed this, the National Council for Special Education has been established on a statutory basis, 80 special educational needs organisers are working on a local basis with schools, parents, children and teachers, an extra 500 children got the benefit of a special needs assistant, new units have been opened and the weighted system, as announced last year, is being reviewed. All that has happened in four months and credit should be given that in recognising that the progress that needs to be made is being advanced.

We all share the same aim, that every child should have the opportunity to reach his or her potential and it is my aim, as Minister for Education and Science, to create the environment where that can be achieved. In the case of a child with special needs, a particular targeted response is needed to enable that child develop his or her abilities, enhance his educational level and prepare him for participation in society.

The record of the State over decades in providing for children with special needs has been poor. Without doubt we are now playing catch-up. In any area of historical under-provision it takes time to improve services to an appropriate level. We have accelerated our investment and efforts to ensure that people with special educational needs and their parents are provided with appropriate services in a timely, efficient and customer friendly manner. Significant advances have been made in the past six years which have made a real difference to the lives of many children with special needs and their families.

We are not there yet, however, and I will not pretend we are — we have progress still to make. While I record achievement, I also acknowledge that services provided for the education of people with special educational needs, including services provided by my Department, were not always as developed as we would have liked. The recent establishment of the National Council for Special Education and the transfer of functions to it will resolve many of the difficulties that existed in the past.

I remind the House of the progress made in the allocation of resources and the increase in staff in this area in the past six years. There are now more than 2,600 resource teachers, up from 104 in 1998. There are 1,500 learning support teachers, more than 1,000 teachers in special schools and more than 600 teachers in special classes. There are nearly 6,000 special needs assistants in our schools — there were only 300 such special needs assistants six years ago. More than €30 million is being spent on school transport for special needs students and more than €3 million goes on specialised equipment and materials, up from £800,000 in 1998.

The scale of resource allocation has facilitated the provision of education for children with special needs in mainly mainstream national schools. However, education for children with special educational needs is provided in a variety of settings. In addition to supported provision in mainstream classes, placement may also be made in special classes and units and in special schools. Pending such a placement, arrangements have also been made for tuition to be delivered in the child's home.

Where appropriate for the individual child, integrated provision with necessary supports is the desired choice of most parents. For children for whom mainstream provision is not appropriate, placement may be made in one of the 108 special schools and the 654 special classes and units located throughout the country. To appreciate the scale of improvement in the provision of resources to primary schools for special needs, it is worth reflecting on the fact that, at approximately 10,700, the number of adults providing services to children with special educational needs in primary schools today is more than half the 21,100 teachers in the system in 1998. The debate cannot question, therefore, the Government's commitment to providing resources for special educational needs.

In 1998, the Government took a decision that has transformed the level of provision for pupils with special educational needs. Pupils with such needs would be entitled to an automatic response to meet those needs and the allocation of resources to meet those needs no longer depended, as it had in the past, on the limited resources that were available to meet those needs. Instead, the response was based on the nature of the disability involved and, once the required supporting professional assessments were made available, the resources were automatically allocated. It was this decision that gave rise to the enormous expansion in resourcing levels to which I have referred.

While the Government decision of October 1998 authorised the allocation of significant resources, it posed significant challenges to the Administration in processing the significant level of applications which were made in response to the Government commitment. I pay tribute to the staff of my Department's special education section, the inspectorate and the National Educational Psychological Service for the efforts they have made to service the demands which were exacerbated by the lack of investment in the past.

It must be acknowledged, however, that despite their efforts, service delivery in this area has not always been adequate to provide the level of service that pupils with special educational needs, their parents, their schools and teachers require and deserve. The Department recognised that it was neither properly resourced nor structured to deliver these services. Arising from the report of an internal planning group, which was endorsed by the Cromien report on the Department of Education and Science and its operations, the Government decided to establish the National Council for Special Education to coordinate the provision of service to children with special educational needs.

The council was established in December 2003 as an independent statutory body with responsibilities as set out in the National Council for Special Education (Establishment) Order 2003. The council currently has 12 members all with a special interest in or knowledge of the area of education of children with disabilities. Since September 2004, 71 special education needs organisers have been employed by the council and deployed on a nationwide basis, with at least one SENO being deployed in each county. Each SENO is responsible for the primary and second level schools in their area and they have made contact with each of their schools and informed them of their role. A recruitment process for a further nine SENOs has been commenced by the council to bring its total up to 80 persons nationwide. In addition to the SENOs, there are 17 staff employed at the head offices of the council in Trim, County Meath.

With effect from 1 January 2005, the National Council for Special Education has taken over responsibility for processing resource applications for children with disabilities who have special educational needs. Under the new arrangements, the council, through the local SENO, will process the relevant application for resources and inform the school of the outcome. The council will also co-ordinate the provision of education and related support services with health boards, schools and other relevant bodies. This will help those parents who find it difficult to get speech and occupational therapists because it will now co-ordinate the delivery of services for the child.

The people with whom we deal in the special education area frequently raise the issue of the lack of co-ordination between the health services, with parents feeling excluded from such decisions, and the role of the teacher locally. Placing organisers in the locality will enable them to work with the parents and the schools, particularly to co-ordinate the services on a local level, ensuring that when a child has been identified as having a special need, the services can be put in place immediately.

The special educational needs organisers are responsible for ensuring that all special educational needs in their areas are addressed in an effective manner. They are charged with facilitating access to and co-ordinating education services for children with special needs in their areas. They will do this by liaising between local providers of educational services, necessary ancillary services, the council, the Department and parents. In many cases provision will be based on individual education plans for the children involved.

The SENOs were recruited in an open, competitive process and all have previous experience of direct service provision to people with disabilities and have wide-ranging experience from which the whole system can benefit. The SENOs who have been appointed are being assigned responsibility for specific primary, post-primary and special schools in their areas. The council and the Department have put transitional arrangements in place to ensure a smooth transfer of functions. The establishment of the NCSE will greatly enhance the provision of services for children with special educational needs and will result in a timely response to schools which have made application for special educational needs supports. The local service delivery aspect of the council's operation through the SENOs will provide a focal point of contact for parents and guardians and for schools and will, I am confident, result in a much improved service for all.

Arising out of the ongoing review of the resource allocation process, it was clear that the automatic response was operating in a manner that was far from automatic. The reality was that every single application had to be accompanied by a psychological or clinical assessment and had to be processed individually. The requirements of the process diverted school principals and psychologists from other work and delayed the processing of applications. The process was both cumbersome and time consuming.

In light of the reality that pupils in the high incidence disability categories of mild and borderline mild general learning disability and dyslexia are distributed throughout the education system, my Department, in consultation with educational interests, has developed a model of general teacher allocation for these disability categories. This model, which was announced in 2004, to come into effect from September 2005, was designed to put in place a permanent resource in primary schools to cater for pupils in these categories. The model was constructed so that allocations would be based on pupil numbers, taking into account the differing needs of the most disadvantaged schools and the evidence that boys have greater difficulties than girls in this regard, as Deputy Gogarty accepted.

The logic behind having a general allocation model is to reduce the need for individual applications and supporting psychological assessments, and put resources in place on a more systematic basis, thereby giving schools more certainty about their resource levels. This will allow for better planning in schools and greater flexibility in identifying and intervening earlier with regard to pupils' special needs, as well as making the posts more attractive to qualified teachers.

I am, however, very conscious of difficulties that could arise regarding the model announced last year, particularly for children in small and rural schools, if it were implemented as currently proposed. For that reason I announced in October that I would have the proposed model reviewed to ensure that it provides an automatic response for pupils with common mild learning disabilities, without the need for cumbersome individual applications, while at the same time ensuring that pupils currently in receipt of service continue to receive the level of service appropriate to their needs. In carrying out the review, my Department is consulting representative interests, including the National Council for Special Education. I have received a number of submissions from around the country and these have been taken into consideration. The views of the council, which is comprised of people with a particular expertise, will be considered as part of this review.

I have made it clear that I am in favour of using a general allocation model to ensure that we have in place a permanent resource in our primary schools to cater for pupils with high incidence mild disabilities and learning difficulties. However, it will not be as announced last year. The revised procedure for providing a general allocation of resource hours to schools will be announced in the coming weeks, in time to be implemented for the next school year. The revised system will reduce the administrative burden on schools and allow them to concentrate on the delivery of services to pupils with special needs. It will also allow psychologists to devote more time to advising teachers on planning for individual children and for whole school provision. It will reduce pressures placed on principals, teachers and psychologists by the previous allocation system, which was time-consuming and could delay the allocation of resources for special needs. Action had to be taken to reform the system and the model now being introduced will, over time, significantly improve the capacity of the system to cater for children with special needs in a speedier, more effective way. In the lower incidence disability categories resources will continue to be allocated on the basis of individual applications.

Judging by some of the comments made tonight, there seems to be some confusion about that. It has always been the case that the more serious disability will continue to receive individual allocation. It is important that where there is a particular and special need in the low incidence category these children are considered individually. The resource will be allocated to them according to their individual needs. These pupils are not evenly distributed among schools and a general allocation model would not be appropriate. However, the involvement of the National Council for Special Education and the organisers will greatly enhance the speed of response to such applications.

The general allocation model will allocate an appropriate level of resources to schools. The deployment of those resources is, as it should be, a matter for the schools and in particular for school principals in consultation with their staff. The needs of children change over time as they develop and as programmes devised by their teachers take effect. I know it is the aim of every parent that their child would have no need for a resource teacher. The best people to recognise such a need are the class teacher and the principal. Decisions in this area are best taken at school level rather than at a remote distance by the Department of Education and Science.

My Department has supported and will continue to support schools and principals through the provision of advice and not least through the support of the national educational psychological service. Applications for special needs assistants will continue to be made on an individual level in accordance with the criteria set out by the Department. The criteria referred to a significant medical need for such an assistant, a significant impairment of physical or sensory function, or where the child's behaviour is such that he or she is a danger to himself or herself, or to another. There was a significant care element included in those criteria. It is important that we continue to highlight that because the last thing we want is that children should become unnecessarily dependent on a special needs assistant. I know it is the aim of parents that where possible that dependency should reduce over time to give the child the skills to survive in school and in society in a more independent fashion. The processing of these applications for special needs assistants has been transferred to the National Council for Special Education with effect from 1 January last.

In addition to the changes made in the delivery of resources to date, the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 provides a map for the future development of special educational needs services. The Act reflects the Government's commitment to putting in place a strategy to address the needs of people with disability. It will begin in steps over the next few years, in accordance with an implementation plan to be drafted by the National Council for Special Education. The Act creates enforceable rights to an educational assessment for all children with special educational needs, the development of an individual educational plan and the delivery of education services on foot of the plan. It also ensures that the resources necessary to vindicate those rights will be available to schools, the Health Service Executive and the council.

Resources are of major importance to the provision of the service. There are duties on the Ministers for Finance, Health and Children, and Education and Science to ensure that adequate resources are provided for the delivery of services. In particular the Minister for Finance is obliged to have due regard to the State's duty to provide for an education appropriate to the needs of every child under the Constitution and the necessity to provide equity of treatment for all children.

One of the principles underpinning the Act is that parents must have a right to be consulted and fully informed at every stage of the process. If they feel their views are not being fully recognised or the plan is not being implemented effectively, they have a right to appeal decisions concerning their children to an independent review board. The board will have the power to compel bodies, including the Health Service Executive, to take specific action to address matters before it. Nothing in the Act will restrict the right of recourse to the courts, rather it will simplify the process of enforcing the right to an appropriate education through the appeals board and the introduction of a mediation process prior to full scale litigation if the parents remain dissatisfied with the appeals board's findings. None of us wants to see parents forced to go to court. We would much rather see the resources that go into fighting court cases put into the delivery of services. That is the aim and, I believe, the outcome of this Act.

Of equal significance is the facility under section 29 of the Education Act 1998 which provides parents with an appeal process where a board of management of a school or a person acting on behalf of the board refuses to enrol a student. Where an appeal under section 29 is upheld, the Secretary General of my Department may direct a school to enrol a pupil. Separately, the National Educational Welfare Board can assist parents who are experiencing difficulty in securing a school place for their child. The welfare board has indicated that it will treat children for whom an appeal under section 29 has been unsuccessful as priority cases in offering such assistance. While the rights under section 29 and the assistance of the NEWB are not limited to children with special educational needs, they nevertheless provide an important mechanism for parents of all children in attempting to resolve difficulties surrounding enrolment issues. The rights of the parents are protected to ensure that they are satisfied with the provisions of the findings on the needs of the child and the services to be provided for that child. I appreciate that previously parents of children with special educational needs felt they had little option but to resort to the court to meet the educational needs of their children. I am confident that increasingly parents will not find such actions necessary in the light of the extensive funding and statutory measures the Government has introduced to provide for the special educational needs of our children.

The Cornhairle (Amendment) Bill 2004 will provide an advocacy service for parents, so that in addition to the support to be provided by the special needs organisers there will be another source of advice and support for parents. Taken together the provisions of the Acts amount to a comprehensive framework to address the gaps in the system, a framework which deals with the issue not in aspirational terms but gives parents the means to enforce their rights easily and quickly.

The Opposition motion referred to the full implementation of the recommendations of the task force on autism. These recommendations provide an invaluable basis for the development of educational services and supports for persons with autism. However, in responding to the recommendations, my Department has had to give priority to a number of key areas before detailed individual recommendations can be addressed. These key areas involve the implementation of the core legislative and structural measures required to underpin service development and delivery. This approach is critical to the implementation of many of the individual recommendations of the task force including those relating to assessment, parental involvement, service delivery, information dissemination, promotion of inclusion and co-ordination between health and education authorities.

The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 has been enacted while, on the structural front, I have already outlined the position on the establishment of the NCSE on a statutory basis. These developments represent significant progress and I am confident they will have a positive impact on services for children with special educational needs, including those with autism. The issue of the ongoing implementation of the recommendations of the task force continues to receive detailed consideration within my Department. This work will be carefully planned and executed over the coming months in consultation with the council and other interested parties.

However, it is the case that my Department has already acted on many of the recommendations of the task force and it is continuing to develop the network of special educational provision for children with autism. The extent of progress can be measured from the fact that, since 1998, when autism was first recognised as a distinct special educational need, the number of dedicated facilities that have been developed is as follows: 141 special classes for children with autism, attached to special schools and mainstream schools, have been created, ten pre-school classes for children with autism have been established, eight autism facilities, some of which are providing an applied behavioural analysis model of response to children with autism, are being funded, and five special classes for children with Asperger syndrome have been created.

My Department sanctions home tuition grants for children with autism for whom a home-based applied behavioural analysis programme is considered appropriate or in cases where such children are awaiting an appropriate school placement. In addition, the task force on autism put forward a range of important recommendations in the area of continuing professional development. The Department continues to address these recommendations, on a phased basis, through existing supports, through newly established structures and through specific interventions.

Some developments worthy of note are the establishment of the special education support service in September 2003, the provision by the Department on an annual basis for 140 places on a post-graduate diploma programme in special educational needs and 20 places on a postgraduate programme in autism. The Department also funded the development of an applied behaviour analysis training programme in Trinity College Dublin and funded the participation of 12 teachers on the course in 2003-04. The successful participants are now available to the Department, as classroom teachers and as a further training resource.

The role of the special education support service is to manage, co-ordinate and develop a range of supports in response to identified training needs. The service is hosted in Laois Education Centre and is funded by the Department.

As part of its response to the growing demand from teachers for support and training, the special education support service has established teams of trainers to deliver training in four specific areas of autism, challenging behaviour, dyslexia and inclusion at post-primary. This training is delivered locally across the State through the education centre network. In addition, the service provides immediate responses to requests from schools for support in a variety of autism-related areas. The service also funds the provision of on-line training courses, including a course on autism, during the summer months of July and August and during the autumn and spring terms. The service funds approved approaches to the teaching of children with autism such as picture exchange communication system known as PECCS and Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication Handicapped Children known as TEACCH and the Hanen approach.

Another major landmark in the development of autism specific services was the joint launch last month by my predecessor and the Minister with responsibility for Education in Northern Ireland of the Middletown Centre for Autism to which the Deputies have referred in the motion. This marked the successful completion of the purchase of the former St. Joseph's Adolescent Centre, Middletown on behalf of the Department of Education in the North and the Department of Education and Science in the South. Both Departments plan to refurbish the property to meet the needs of a centre of excellence for children and young people with autism throughout the island of Ireland. The centre will be dedicated to improving and enriching the educational opportunities of children and young people with autistic spectrum disorders.

Four key services will be provided by the centre: a learning support service on a residential basis, an educational assessment service, a training and advisory service, and an autism research and information service. The motion further refers to the matter of accelerating delivery of the Middletown Centre. A number of working groups are continuing to address the legal, financial, organisational and infrastructural aspects of the proposal. For example, work is continuing on the development of a campus masterplan for the Middletown property which, when complete, will guide the commissioning of any necessary infrastructure and refurbishment works. In addition, the process for recruitment of a chief executive officer to operate the centre is being formulated.

The steps taken in recent years and those in hand represent significant progress in the development of services for children with autism. However, I fully recognise that further progress is required and my Department in consultation with parents and existing service providers will seek to ensure the recent rate of development is maintained.

The record of this Government in the area of special education is one of action. We have greatly expanded the level of resourcing for pupils with special needs. We have put new structures in place through the establishment of the National Council for Special Education, which will improve and speed up the delivery of services to pupils with special needs their parents and schools. For many years there was a deficit of recognition for these children or their needs. It is because of that we can point to so much development and so much resources in the past six years, as well as further improvements that I hope to put in place to meet the needs of the children more efficiently. We have also provided a comprehensive legislative framework to govern the delivery of these services. During my tenure as Minister for Education and Science I will look forward to making further improvements in services for pupils with special educational needs.

On the issue of the pupil teacher ratio in our schools and the class sizes at primary level, significant improvements have been made in recent years. More than 4,000 additional teachers have been employed in our primary schools since 1997. These additional teaching posts have been used to reduce class sizes, to tackle educational disadvantage and to provide additional resources for children with special needs.

The allocation of posts for children with special needs and improvements to the staffing schedule have helped ensure the overall pupil teacher ratio in primary schools has improved substantially. The type of improvements implemented include: the appointment and retention figure for the first mainstream class teacher has been reduced to 12 pupils; the appointment of administrative principals to ordinary schools where there are nine or more teachers including ex-quota posts; the enrolment figures required for the appointment of administrative principals to ordinary schools and Gaelscoileanna have been reduced; the allocation of resource teacher posts to either individual schools or to a cluster of schools where a need has been identified; the allocation of teaching posts to schools where 14 or more pupils with significant English language deficits are identified and the allocation of additional learning support teachers.

As a result of the allocation of these extra teaching posts, the pupil teacher ratio at primary level has fallen from 22.2:1 in the 1996-97 school year to 17.44:1 in 2003-04. The average class size at primary level is now 23.9, down from 26.6 in 1996-97.

Significantly smaller class sizes have been introduced in disadvantaged schools involved in the Giving Children an Even Break-Breaking the Cycle programme, with approximately 47,700 pupils in 243 participating schools availing of reduced class sizes of either 15 or 20 pupils per class. In line with the commitment in the programme for Government, class sizes will be reduced still further. It is interesting to note, in light of the figures quoted by some Deputies, in regard to the OECD figures that the outcomes from the classes in Ireland are far better than those with smaller classes in some of the OECD countries. However, we can only reduce class sizes on a phased basis having regard to the available resources. The deployment of additional posts will be decided within the context of the overall policy that priority will be given to pupils with special needs, those from disadvantaged areas and pupils in junior classes. Obviously there are factors in respect of teacher supply and the work which has been done in that area.

My colleagues will expand on the work being done in that regard in tomorrow's debate. As I have outlined in my contribution, it is evident that in the past six years, particularly in the past few months, substantial progress has been made in providing services for children with special educational needs to ensure they are given the opportunity, in an environment suitable to their needs, to reach their potential, while recognising that the progress which has been made must continue.

See this speech in context