Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)

I have listened to what the Minister has had to say. There is no doubt there has been more of everything in recent years. However, any educational provision is not good enough. It is the quality of that education that counts and the outcomes the child gains as a result of the intervention that matters. This is especially the case with children with learning difficulties or special educational needs. Children with special educational needs typically do not learn at the pace of their peers and can get lost in large classes. This does not mean they cannot learn. To be given a fair chance or a level playing field they need timely intervention and various forms of quality support. The quality support must be from appropriately trained competent teachers and special needs assistants. It is not just a question of numbers. For example, I have been a teacher but it does not mean I am a specialist in these disabilities and difficulties. I make this critical point at the outset. Special education needs exist on a continuum from mild to severe. It should be easy for class teachers to spot the difficulties of all children, but that is not the case.

Children at primary and second level should not necessarily need a psychological assessment to access resources for learning needs. I agree it is a different matter for resource level and specific learning difficulties. In the past, learning support was only available for children below the tenth percentile. This has now stretched to the 12th percentile using the general allocation model. As an educator and observer of practice, I have seen that children below the 25th percentile are in difficulty in many of our classes.

For inclusion to be effective — the stated policy of the Department of Education and Science is for inclusion of children with special needs — the school needs to be equipped to respond at a whole-school level to all children's needs. This means better training and competency. Can the Minister say if the general allocation model of learning support for a school is now more effective at picking up and treating a wider range of children, given that children with dyslexia or special learning difficulty are now lumped into this category? I am amazed that those children are being lumped in with the general allocation model. Previously, they received resource hours along with other low-incidence children suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Down's syndrome or autism.

Will the Minister look at that area and the outcomes for children with dyslexia? In schools in my area in Galway, the learning support teacher now feels overloaded with needs under the general allocation model of provision and does not have the time available to give to new children as needs arise. The special education needs organiser, SENO, is now called the "Say No" where I come from because he or she says "No" to too many children seeking learning support hours. They do not have the time. This is not good enough. What is the Minister's response to this? I am aware we need to be very specific and not lump everything together in how we discuss children with special educational needs.

The National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, presents a major difficulty. Where there is a learning blockage or problem that cannot be figured out, the child needs to have a psychological assessment to receive appropriate help and so the school can formulate the right individual education plan, IEP, for that child. The problem is only 1,303 primary schools out of 3,200 and 456 out of 720 second level schools have a NEP service. Even when the service is in place, it is inadequate. My local school has 200 children. They get two to three assessments each year when they need ten.

What is the alternative for the parent of a child that has a difficulty? The alternative is what happened with my seven year old child. I had to pay €400 for a psychological assessment. My other option was to wait two to three years for a free assessment for my child. What if I could not have afforded that? The NEPS formulated in this way is no service because a child will lose too much critical learning time unless the parent can afford to pay. This is not good enough. The child falls behind in learning but more importantly, how does he or she feel? No one is estimating that. The nature and extent of the child's problems will deepen, making later remediation more costly to the State. This is why these students will have a right in the future under the education legislation to sue the State if they establish that their needs were not met.

At present the needs of many children at primary and secondary level are not being picked up, assessed and treated properly. I know this because I am in the schools. I have been brought into second level schools to look specifically at learning gain. We have a famine in this country at second level because, whatever the Minister likes to think, the system is not child centred. It is subject centred because it is an exam-based system.

In my child's case we diagnosed, with the help of a psychological assessment, a verbal comprehension difficulty which is being successfully remediated because we were lucky to get speech and language therapy. My child had no learning difficulty but the verbal comprehension blockage was preventing learning. We then fought for six sessions of speech and language therapy and because the level of expertise was so good and so targeted, she has made major gains in confidence and competence. That is the type of intervention that must take place. Six sessions is not enough. Much more will be needed in the future.

Upskilling in special educational needs is needed for mainstream class teachers. A qualified teacher does not necessarily have specialised training in the area. The child spends the majority of his or her time in the mainstream classroom so the teacher needs to understand the various difficulties and disabilities as well as how to differentiate instruction within the mainstream. I know teachers are doing a wonderful job but they need more help to become more specialised. The pull-out model of learning support, where a child is taken out of the classroom, is not always the right model. Many children begin to feel bad about themselves, especially as they grow older. I know there is a place for this model but we must have concern for the child's self-image.

We must look at new developments. In this regard, I welcome the new on-line course in St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra on special educational needs which is geared towards classroom teachers. It should be resourced and widened and all teachers should do it.

Another issue needing attention is training for the 10,000 special needs assistants, SNAs. The Minister is correct in saying she has appointed many more, but training is an issue. I welcome their appointment because they play a major role and are a great help. I have seen them when supervising teaching practice in classrooms. However, the majority of them are untrained to address the disabilities presented by the students they are intended to support. Therefore, policy aspirations such as inclusion can only be met partially by the Department.

The Minister needs to look at ways to better support special needs assistants in providing services to schools. For comparison purposes she should look at the skills level of applied behaviour analysis tutors, which level is the result of training. They are similar to SNAs in terms of background. She should also look at the training level of child care assistants in Early Start. This is the type of investment that must be made if inclusion is to work effectively.

There is a famine at second level for children with learning difficulties and special educational needs. Major difficulties arise in this area. Children with special educational needs services at primary level should be allowed carry these resources on to second level, but that is not the case. They must start all over again. They lose time, need an assessment and can be embarrassed in front of their new peers. It is a major transition from primary to second level and I ask the Minister to examine that area.

I have completed a survey on second level education with 500 public representatives and have its preliminary findings. I targeted second level because I believe it is the area most in need in terms of special needs. The results show that what is needed most at second level is greater teacher attention, including help with special educational needs. Frequently, the help needed at second level is subject-based. What is a child's entitlement when a school does not address a child's specific needs in subject areas? Many are told to go and get private help, which is appalling because the child does not need an overall assessment. Will the Minister ensure I get a written response on that from the Department?

On the subject of autism and the issue of ABA or the eclectic approach, I ask the Minister to listen what I say. Listening is critical if we are to improve outcomes for our children who are all entitled to a fair and appropriate education under the Constitution.

I observed two schools, Claddagh national school in Galway city which has an autistic unit in a mainstream school, and Ábalta national school in Knocknacarra, which is an ABA method school. In the latter there was a 1:1 pupil-tutor ratio, a focused, targeted programme of intervention, speech and occupational therapy every day and trained ABA tutors under a lead teacher or psychologist on autism spectrum disorders. This can be compared with what I saw in the very caring environment of the Claddagh national school. There were 16 children in the autism unit in a cramped space. They had very hard-working diligent teachers but they were overworked and found it difficult to cope with the 6:1 ratio. They had no speech and language therapy and no occupational therapy. How can the two compare?

Children with autism have communication and behavioural difficulties and for them not to have speech and language therapy or occupational therapy is criminal. I plead with the Minister to examine the situation in Claddagh national school. The school has a privately financed occupational therapist, at €642 per day, to help its autistic children with gross and fine motor co-ordination difficulties. Will their entitlements improve with the implementation of the Education for People with Special Educational Needs Act? Does this situation describe the Minister's preferred model of appropriate eclectic education for children? If so, it is a raw deal for children with autism.

Unless children get the same hours, services and quality interventions under the eclectic model, the two models do not compare. This may be where the drawback is. With autism, early diagnosis is critical, followed by sustained intervention. If the Minister is not arrogant and is committed to autism education, she must conduct research that tracks autistic children's progress to see what interventions they have had and what has worked. It would be wrong of her to make final decisions on the provision for autistic children unless we have a more informed Irish-based view. It would only take some weeks or months for the Department to track children who have gone through the system.

I thank the Minister for her time and hope she has been listening. She must give all children a fair chance. I know that is what she intends, but she must look at the specific requirements to do that.