Special needs - Educational apartheid is intolerable

The very notion that some schools are engaged in a form of apartheid towards children with special needs is so contemptible as to be intolerable.

Yet, it is a practice which is not alone prevalent throughout the country, but condoned by the Department of Education.

That is the only interpretation to be taken, as Education Minister Mary Hanafin has previously acknowledged that schools do contrive to prevent special needs students from enrolling but has ruled out taking any sanctions against them.

Her rather simplistic response has been to indicate that the offending schools could be told to change their enrolment policies, instead of threatening to withdraw State funding if they persist with this unconscionable practice.

This exclusionist attitude has led to what the Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) describes as a “ghettoisation of certain students”, and it now wants to establish precisely where and to what extent, this deplorable policy is applied.

The TUI has previously sought figures from the National Council for Special Education and the Department of Education to establish the degree of segregation countrywide, but so far to no avail.

As John MacGabhann, of the teachers’ union, points out, the excuses for not getting this information are no longer plausible and he is quite correct.

The information has to be available because officials from the department have been engaged in an analysis of enrolments in numerous parts of the country to assess how common the practice is.

In the absence of any action being taken so far by the minister, it is the intention of the TUI to establish how many children with special needs are enrolled in schools and what category of needs they have.

Importantly, it pledges to be a comprehensive list, not shy to let the “axe fall where it should on all schools”, should the figures reveal that members of the TUI had been hesitant in enrolling children with special needs.

It is, of course, vital that the union be supplied with the information to pinpoint those schools operating such policies, which are not always fee-paying.

By evading these responsibilities, a greater burden is placed on those schools which do not discriminate against young people, who may be forced to travel some distance from their locality to avail of facilities they need.

The problems of these children are in many cases compounded by the Department of Education because it has not addressed the considerable shortage of psychologists working for the National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS).

The Government had promised that 184 psychologists would be in place in 2004, but were so parsimonious with resources that the service had to be subvented by St Vincent de Paul financing up to 1,000 child appraisals.

Even when this newspaper showed up that appalling situation, the Ms Hanafin only promised another 25 psychologists would be employed, which still leaves the NEPS short by 26.

If, as the minister maintains, supporting children with special needs and tackling disadvantage were priorities for the Government, then it is an abysmal reflection of how they regard their priorities.