Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

In the particular case of the Presentation primary school, Tuam, I wish to advise the Senator that, as a school with most disadvantaged status in the context of the urban dimension of Giving Children an Even Break, the most favourable ratio of 80:1 would apply.

The rationale for a pupil teacher ratio of 150 pupils for every teacher in mixed schools to support pupils with higher incidence special educational needs and learning difficulties is as follows — the pupil teacher ratio for a learning support teacher was approximately 300 pupils, 10% of whom would be expected to have learning difficulties in the fields of literacy and numeracy. On that basis, approximately 15 out of a group of 150 pupils would be expected to have learning difficulties. This is considered half of a teacher's caseload. A further 3%, or four to five pupils, in this cohort would be expected to have higher incidence special educational needs and would expect to receive 2.5 resource teaching hours per week. This would account for the other half of a teacher's caseload.

The rationale for the different pupil teacher ratios in boys' schools, where the ratio is 140:1 and girls' schools where the ratio is 200:1 is twofold. First, international literature on the incidence of disability indicates that, across all disability types, there is a greater incidence in boys than in girls; and, second, international and national surveys of literacy and numeracy have found that these difficulties are more common among boys than girls.

The rationale for the level of support proposed for schools in areas of urban disadvantage is that evidence shows there is a significantly higher incidence of literacy and numeracy difficulties in areas of urban disadvantaged compared to other schools, including those in areas of rural disadvantage. It is important to emphasise that applications may be made for specific resource teacher allocations in respect of pupils with lower incidence special educational needs, regardless of gender, of pupil or status of school.

The proposed system is intended to improve and streamline the special education resource teacher allocation process. The model will obviate the need for cumbersome individual applications, while at the same time ensure that pupils currently in receipt of service continue to receive the level of support appropriate to their needs. In that context, the additional posts being put in place represent a significant investment to ensure the success of the measure.

Nonetheless, the Minister for Education and Science is conscious of difficulties that could arise in regard to the model, particularly for children in small and rural schools, if it were implemented as currently proposed. Accordingly, the Minister will be reviewing the proposal to ensure that it provides an automatic response for pupils with common higher incidence special educational needs. The review will involve consultation with educational interests and the National Council for Special Education before it is implemented next year.

I thank the Senator for giving me the opportunity to clarify the position on this matter.