Carol Nolan (Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Leas-Cheann Comhairle as ucht an deis chun labhairt ar an ábhar fíor-thábhachtach seo a bhaineann le oideachas speisíalta. I thank Fianna Fáil for bringing forward the motion. While my party broadly supports the sentiment behind the motion, we have concerns with aspects of it.

As the rapporteur of the committee on the issue, I am well aware of the concerns in respect of the staffing of NEPS. As outlined in our amendment, 619 schools across the State do not have access to a NEPS psychologist for the purpose of carrying out an assessment. That is a shocking statistic, and it is there in black and white. We do not want a make-do system whereby a child might get through to a private service. We want a proper service in place for our children through NEPS. I am also aware of the constraints placed on schools seeking an assessment, given that only two assessments per 100 pupils are allowed, which is not enough.

This flies in the face of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, EPSEN, Act 2004, which gives a statutory right to children to receive assessments in a timely manner. The system means that children from privileged backgrounds who can afford to pay privately can, to all intents and purposes, bypass the system and receive an assessment and diagnosis. While I recognise that the sentiment behind the new resource allocation model is to ensure resources can be allocated without an assessment, there is a clear need to increase the capacity of the NEPS in keeping with the EPSEN Act and all it stands for.

The provision of an accurate assessment is important. From a teaching and planning point of view it is vital. It provides schools, parents and even the children themselves with the information needed to adequately support them in fulfilling their right to a high-quality education. In my experience as a learning support teacher and as an acting principal, an assessment and identification of a child's needs can often be a huge source of comfort and reassurance to the parents and the child. It can explain the difficulties the child may be experiencing. Surely their self-esteem is worth protecting. It reassures the child that it is not his or her fault and I have seen many instances in which the self-esteem and confidence of children has improved significantly as a result of a diagnosis. In that context, the development of the conversation regarding the so-called labelling of children has been very negative and unhelpful. If a person has a medical condition, surely that individual wants to know about it so he or she can manage it. This is no different. It is a positive way forward for children and their families.

If there are situations in which children are being misdiagnosed, they need to be addressed. However, this has not been my experience. As we know, due to the lack of capacity in the context of early intervention and school-age mental health and disability teams, obtaining an assessment and diagnosis of a child can be a very trying and frustrating process for parents. It is not undertaken willy-nilly by parents or schools. It is taken very seriously and is used as a last resort if a child is experiencing difficulties. To suggest children are being diagnosed improperly and without good reason undermines the professionalism of the services. There is always a good reason for it. Most worryingly, that to which I refer sends out a message that, in having a special educational need, there is a negative connotation in having a so-called label associated with a child and that it is something of which to be ashamed. That is wrong. Like any condition, one needs to know what the condition is and be able to manage it. I assume this is not the intention of commentators, yet it comes across that way. I urge people to be careful in the language they use and the message it sends.

I fully support the provision in the motion that calls for powers to be given to the NCSE to provide for a special class or autism class where there is clear demand for one. There is a huge shortage of autism classes throughout the State, particularly at second level, and this must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Although our party has already committed to an amendment of the upcoming Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2016 in this regard, I would welcome any moves to address the issue in the meantime. I take the Minister's point that a clear need must be established for such a class and that it is better if schools are not compelled to provide such classes against their will. However, the needs of the child must be paramount in this situation. If we are striving towards an inclusive education system, it must be done. We cannot kick the can down the road any longer when it is clear that there is a problem that must be addressed.

While I understand and welcome the sentiments behind the new resource allocation model in that it aims to provide increased flexibility to schools to allocate resources based on need and allow schools to provide for the special educational needs of pupils without an assessment or diagnosis, there are a number of concerns. I have been flooded with concerns from principals and teachers about the new resource allocation model. If we consider the upcoming admissions legislation, which seeks to eliminate the barriers to admissions for children with special educational needs, we must ask ourselves if there is not a contradiction between this aim and the operation of the new model. I refer specifically to the fact that, under the new model, schools will have their allocations fixed for two years in advance of the enrolment process. This raises a number of concerns.

The first of these concerns is that it will undermine the intention of the new admissions legislation in giving schools a very legitimate reason to deny admission to a child with special educational needs where the school does do not have the resources. I have been informed of one such instance where a parent has been informed by a principal and a special educational needs organiser that the local school will not have the resources for two years in order to admit their child. We speak of inclusive education but it is clear that this does not fit in with our vision for such education. It certainly does not fit in with Sinn Féin's view for an inclusive education system.

The second major concern with the new resource allocation model is that no clarity has been afforded to schools around situations where children with special educational needs enter a school subsequent to the allocation. Inclusion Ireland, the National Council for Special Education and the inspectorate of the Department of Education and Skills have all called for an appeals mechanism to be established in cases where schools have concerns about their profiles and their subsequent allocations. To date, the full details of this appeals process has not been published and a letter issued to schools yesterday states that the details of the process will be published on 20 March. There is much confusion and publication of the information must be fast-tracked. I hope the appeals process will be a robust and speedy mechanism for schools to address the unanticipated changes in a school’s profile under the new resource allocation model. The lack of clarity at this stage is very worrying and frustrating for schools throughout the State. The new resource allocation model envisages that additional needs identified after a school receives an initial allocation will be addressed through the inclusion support service. This service has not been fully established, but I understand that work is ongoing to expedite matters. There are many gaps in this resource allocation model with things so up in the air. In the Department circulars issued this week and in the letter with details of the allocation that was sent to schools, there was no mention of this service or, indeed, the additional support that will be provided for schools in cases where additional needs have been identified. This is very worrying and a source of frustration for schools.

Given the fact that the model for identification of future complex needs has yet to be finalised, we are now in a situation where increased demand for supports and resources for children with special educational needs may not be adequately provided for under the new model. This is compounded by the fact that the complex needs component of the allocation to a school is calculated on the basis of the current low incidence allocation and may not cover situations where there is increased enrolment of children with complex needs or cases where children receive a diagnosis after the allocation is provided to schools.

Sinn Féin believes there needs to be a clear and straightforward process available to schools in cases where additional needs are identified and the allocation is insufficient to address them. Our amendment seeks to provide additional safeguards to schools. Safeguards are needed because we cannot take chances on something; we must have a good model and a good operation in place. We need to ensure that these needs can be addressed and I urge all parties to support our amendment.

We have been in contact with stakeholders on this point and they agree that this needs to happen and indeed it is the recommendation of Inclusion Ireland, the NCSE and the Department’s Inspectorate that there needs to be a mechanism to deal with unanticipated demand. This would provide greater reassurance to schools and would be in keeping with the spirit of the new model whereby we are entrusting schools with the flexibility to determine the resources needed to adequately support the child. It would also be in keeping with the spirit of the new admissions legislation, which seeks to remove the barriers to admission to school for children with special educational needs. We know that such additional supports are absolutely crucial as pointed out by the Department of Education and Skills' Inspectorate report, which says that the impact of the new resource allocation model was primarily in schools that received additional supports. This motion calls for additional provision to be made in cases where a child has a specific diagnosis when entering or transferring from school. Sinn Féin feels, however, that this needs to be broader in order to address the issues outlined above. The linking of additional supports to a diagnosis flies in the face of what the new resource allocation model is about and it sends a contradictory message to schools and parents.

I appreciate the fact that there are positive aspects to the new resource allocation model but I sincerely hope that the issues to which I refer will be addressed before September. Parents, schools and children are desperate for an effective and inclusive system that allows the supports and resources to be put in place to address the needs of children with special educational needs. Appropriate investment in the NEPS and early intervention may be a more effective means of addressing many of the issues. In one way it appears that we have come up with a very convoluted solution to the delay in assessing children. In any event, I have difficulties with the wording of the motion before us. I call on all parties to support our amendment to the motion, which provides additional safeguards for schools and, more importantly, for children.

See this speech in context