Fight for support

A proposal that could see special needs teachers deployed as the principal of each school sees fit is examined by Education Correspondent Niall Murray

THERE has been widespread welcome for the principles behind plans to reform how extra teaching supports are given to children with special learning needs.

When it comes to implementing any proposals, however, there will be pressure to make sure the system is fair and transparent — which its designers say it will be.

Although there is every chance that thousands of pupils could end up with less one-to-one teaching than they currently receive, the idea is that schools and teachers will be best-placed to decide what each pupil needs. For every child with autism or Down Syndrome, for example, their individual situation might be very different to another with the same condition.

The system should work well in principle, but some understandable cautions have been raised; inevitably, many of them focus on the amount of teaching resources the Department of Education will give to it.

It currently has a budget for 11,000 special needs teachers, but they are deployed differently for different groups of children, depending on their level of learning difficulties or disability. The plan in the National Council for Special Education proposal this week is that the distinction would end, and newly titled roles of support teachers would be put into use as the principal of each school sees fit.

As things stand, more than 5,000 learning support teachers are spread among schools, on the basis of the size of the school, to work in small groups with children with a range of learning difficulties. Schools have freedom to allocate their time between pupils with common learning difficulties — among them are dyspraxia, or mild speech and language difficulties — but there can be huge disparities between schools of similar size in the prevalence of such issues among their enrolments.

Separately, every primary pupil with each category of more acute disability is automatically given a set number of weekly hours of resource teaching, but only if they have the appropriate professional diagnosis. However, restrictions on resource teacher numbers as part of employment controls at the Department of Education mean only 85% are currently allocated to their schools.

This figure would have been 75% since last autumn if it had not been for the public outcry that followed a planned move in that direction, after which Education Minister Ruairí Quinn was forced to get that cap raised. However, still just 85% of recommended hours will be provided again in the next school year, and probably as long as any changes remain to be implemented, with teacher numbers currently limited to 6,200.

One concern expressed by teachers, principals, and school managers has been that the new allocation model — well-meaning and child-centred as it may be — might end up in more form-filling for staff already feeling burdened with paperwork. As it is, principals in particular spend a lot of time completing applications to the NCSE for resource teaching staff once or twice a year, and assisting parents in many instances with securing the proper assessment needed to secure sanction for such supports.

Under the planned model, that would end, and schools would instead have a small baseline number of support teachers. Crucially, though, their main allocation would be decided every two years, based on their profile: A set of data to be gathered by the department to consider numbers of children with the most complex educational needs, proportions of pupils scoring significantly below-par on standard reading and maths tests, and social context.

There is some work to be done by the Department of Education in getting this information, much of it depending on the ability — or willingness — of schools to provide it all. However, there could be concern that schools will struggle to meet more demands for form-filling and number-crunching, although a lack of all the necessary data again highlights the serious need for a primary pupil database like the one that tracks all second-level students.

Ensuring the uniformity of how the school profile information is collated will be key. There are already accusations that schools with more well-to-do parents who can afford the private assessments have a disproportionate share of resource teachers; while those whose families do not have the wherewithal may not be getting their fair share despite most likely having more pupils needing help.

UNDOUBTEDLY, any such imbalance should be corrected, and these factors and others will inevitably see many schools and individual children having less individual attention than heretofore if the plan is adopted by Government. While systems to allow parents appeal any such losses at a school level are built into the NCSE recommendations, it should be hard for anyone to argue against resources being targeted at those who need them most.

The Irish Primary Principals’ Network does contend, however, that some schools may lose practically all their current supports, while others may run the risk of becoming ‘ghetto schools’.

“It is essential that schools which lose resources should only do so over a period of time.” said IPPN chief executive Seán Cottrell. “Many of the schools losing resources will rightly point out that the support they received was used to move pupils more quickly between bands, which will be more difficult to do in future.”

The principals’ group also welcomes the consideration of social context in deciding schools’ allocations, particularly in light of cuts to extra teacher numbers for Traveller pupils and children whose first language is not English.

While all such views should be taken into account in a consultation process planned by Mr Quinn, however, there is also anxiety that changes that are universally welcomed for their child-centred focus do not get ground down in delays.

Down Syndrome Ireland, which has fought unsuccessfully to have children with the condition who have no other disability qualify for resource teaching, believes the new model would end the problems for such pupils.

However, it is urging that it be implemented for the new school year that begins in September 2015, a target with good merit but one that could be ambitious if the system is to be rolled out successfully and fairly.