Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

When the role of special needs assistant, SNA, was introduced it was very specific and based on the care needs of children with special needs. It was not an educational role. In 1998, only 300 SNAs were employed in the system largely working with children with special needs requiring education and support in a segregated environment such as special schools.

We began to see parent power in the early part of the new millennium. Parents saw a growing economy and could no longer be passive about the absence of appropriate education for their child or children. We began to see court activity. This forced a new approach to children with special educational needs but it was largely driven by parents and not by politicians. The genie is out of the bottle and it will not be possible to return it. Parents may accept hardship for themselves but they certainly will not take what they perceived to be hardship for their child, particularly if that child has a special need.

Over the years, the role of SNAs has changed considerably. It is only now, when money is extremely tight, that the changing role is being questioned. It would be fair to say the system was broken long before the economic crash arrived. There has been a clear need to recognise that in practice, the role of the SNA has evolved from having a function to incorporate care needs to having an educational remit. Whether we like it or not, this is how it has evolved.

Not every case will require an SNA to be redesignated and I believe they need to be redesignated. However, it is clear that if we are to change the system their role must reflect what a large number of them do in the classroom. Often, SNAs have embarked on education and accreditation. They want to provide the best available support for the child or children for whom they care and sometimes they do so at their own expense.

Over the past 10 or 12 years, our classrooms have changed fundamentally. In addition to children with special educational needs, it is not unusual to have children whose first language is not English. Class sizes have also grown in recent years. When I was canvassing during the general election campaign I met young teachers and one would be proud to have them stand in front of a classroom. Their only complaint was not about their situation or their pay and conditions but that they were not getting an opportunity to speak or look after children because the demands in the classroom were so high. They deal with classrooms with pupils of a varying range of abilities. Given that we have such mixed classes, class sizes have become an even more important issue. In areas of the country, such as mine, where the population has expanded rapidly in recent years, the number of children tends to be greater. It is not unusual in parts of my constituency to have classes of in excess of 30 children, sometimes well in excess of this number.

What is happening is that we are trying to offer an inclusive system on the cheap. However, something has to give and the problem is that it will be the quality of education to all the children in the classroom that will suffer. The recent census of population showed 100,000 people more than were planned for and I must question whether we ever planned. In my constituency and elsewhere, I have seen new schools having to be approved at the 11th hour to cater for children, of an age at which they were entitled to an education, who could not be accommodated in the local schools or anywhere in a reasonable distance. I have also seen situations whereby children went through primary education in special classes in mainstream schools but no provision was made for them at second level. Many such families ended up returning to the courts because we did not plan. Again, it was the parents who drove this.

When I was last a Member of the Dáil I asked a series of parliamentary questions on how much had been spent in the preceding three years, from 2004 to 2006, fighting in court parents seeking appropriate education for their children. When I totted up the numbers, the total spent was €20 million. I do not want to see a return to the courts but I can see situations in which parents will feel they have no choice.

As the population grows, the need for educational supports will grow. I doubt 10,000 is the right number but it may be. It needs to be based on need rather than economics because long-term economics will suffer by virtue of the fact that the education being provided will suffer. Most children with special needs are educated in mainstream schools. Special schools are for more dependent children. A few months ago, the number of SNAs in St. Raphael's in Celbridge was reduced. One parent was asked not to send a child to school because that child could not be accommodated safely in the environment. That is a disgrace. Certain things must be safeguarded and this situation simply cannot be allowed to continue.

The voices of parents, teachers, SNAs and other resource providers, together with experts, must all play a part in designing the service. The National Council for Special Education is on the frontline but it works on the basis of available resources rather than meeting needs. Sometimes one hears the offensive remarks about special education needs officers, SENOs, but it is not their fault; they can work only with what is available to them.

There is also a lack of transparency in the system. Typically, parents complain it took them months or years to get an SNA and 15 minutes for the service to be withdrawn. That was about economics and not education. There is a need for an independent appeals mechanism as opposed to the situation at present whereby the National Council for Special Education refuses a case and then adjudicates an appeal. It lacks credibility.

A reformed system needs a method of accreditation that would allow a portion of SNAs working in the system to train and qualify as learning support assistants. This would be a reflection of the work they do at present. The rewards for many SNAs go far beyond the issue of a weekly wage. I remind the House they are not excessively paid and often the difference between what they are paid and what they would receive on the dole is not huge. The tangible results they get are from the job they do, and many of them will state this. Sometimes the result is achieved slowly, but a result is achieved. They also see that the culture for children with special needs has changed and they have been part of this change. This benefit cannot be quantified in the short term but it is light-years ahead of my experience growing up when children with special needs were very much segregated. We cannot see a return to this.

I have never entered the house of a child with special needs where the parents have not had a folder, because they have become permanent lobbyists for their child. For many years, parents of a child with Down's syndrome presumed a child with autism received better services. However, such parents now speak to each other and they know service provision is similar across the spectrum and that it will never be adequate. There needs to be a base line beyond which we do not go. These services must be protected. Parents speak to each other and are active together and in that regard it does not matter what diagnosis the child has. Parents may be prepared to accept hardship but they will not accept it for their children. The Government has picked a fight with the wrong group.

See this speech in context