Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their contributions to the debate. I will try to deal with each issue in turn.

Senators Ó Domhnaill, Gavan and others acknowledged the earlier allocation of special needs assistants. This is welcome. Fórsa was very keen to see this done. It makes for better planning. Whether we can bring the date back to March is probably an open question. We allow applications to go beyond March. We try to assess the applications that are received in a timely way and we then try to turn them around as quickly as possible. I will consider whether we can do it even earlier but the purpose is to ensure we leave enough time for people to make their application and enough time for the school to absorb.

I will have to get back to Senator Ó Domhnaill on some of the specific skills. He did not mention the schools involved. In general, when the Department publishes an indicative year for a school, for planning purposes, it does not constitute a promise that a school will be built in that year. It may be listed for 2019 for the purpose of planning but each project depends on land acquisition and planning permission. These matters can divert the progress on individual projects. Many of the delays have been because of difficulties with land acquisition and planning applications. Alternatively, adaptations had to be made because of roads and all sorts of other factors. While the Department gives an indicative year, it should not be construed as a promise. That is not the context.

On school transport, the policy continues as it is. There are those who are accommodated on a concessionary basis, but it is a concession. The requirement on the minimum distance from the school, which must be met if one is to be entitled to school transport, remains. That has been a bedrock of policy for a long time. Representatives always come to me or the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan. He is always asking whether the rule could not be bent a tiny bit to accommodate individuals but the truth is that if one changes the rule, it sets a precedent. There are 4,000 schools and catchment areas. The whole system is very difficult to manage if there is any small change. That has been the difficulty. We devote €120 million to the programme so it is not that we are not spending the money. We are. Many children are being accommodated.

Addressing capitation grants is part of our confidence and supply agreement, as it is part of the programme for Government. In the first two budgets for which I have been Minister for Education and Skills, I have had to give priority to matters such as reducing the pupil-teacher ratio and tackling disadvantage. I felt these were of greater priority in the shorter term if we were to meet real challenges. I recognise fully that capitation is a problem for schools.

Senator Ruane raised a number of issues concerning our capacity and the way we cater for special needs. The move away from regarding diagnosis as essential towards the front-loading of the school with the teaching resource is designed to try to be more flexible in addressing problems of every origin, including behavioural problems.The teaching professionals can look at that child, his or her learning needs as they identify them and seek to cater to that child appropriately. That is a more flexible way. It allows the school to lead learning as best they can to cater to that child.

I fully acknowledge that in some cases diagnosis gives a huge insight that they perhaps would not have had and that it can be helpful, but the system that was there was that diagnosis was a gateway and if one did not get the diagnosis, the child would not get through the gate. In terms of freeing up NEPS time to do the diagnosis where it adds value, as opposed to ticking a box on a form to trigger a provision, it is a win win. It frees up the supports from NEPS to do assessment where it is needed, as in the example of Senator Ruane's own personal experience which she cited. It can make a huge difference but we do not want to make it a requirement.

I hope that is the same with those specific requirements, for example, where there is difficulty with maths or numbers that the school can respond flexibly. The NCSE has its own support service which we have now expanded and it is available to back up and build the capacity of a school to run the new resource teaching model. Where there are particular problems, that resource can be called upon by the school to assist. It is in a growth phase, it has only recently been established but we see a role for the NCSE in building capacity within the school. That is the model we are moving towards, building capacity with professional assistance, not within the school but assigned to the school in different ways. If there is an individual child whose needs cannot be met, and Senator Devine mentioned such a scenario, the NCSE will look at that and do its best to accommodate that child if he or she is brought to our attention.

Senator Ruane raises a valid point that the disability supports in further education are much weaker than in higher education. As we move to develop further education as a pathway, and I am very keen to develop apprenticeships and traineeships as a more solid, respected and supported pathway, we need to devote more attention to disability supports. That is something to take away from the debate. I refer to the question of the curriculum in special schools only going to primary level and how young people would be equipped to live independently. I am sure the special schools have appropriate curriculums and not just on the academic side but I will have to get back to Senator Ruane on that.

Senator Noone raised an issue on the progressive disability team. This is a development within the health service rather than my own Department.