This morning, we will engage with the Department of Education and Youth to examine the appropriation accounts for 2024, specifically Vote 26 - education and youth; the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2024: chapter 11 - control of grant payments to schools; and the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2023: chapter 8 - monitoring and managing the performance of school inspections.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome from the Department of Education and Youth Ms. Bernie McNally, Secretary General; Mr. Dalton Tattan, assistant secretary general; Ms Martina Mannion, assistant secretary general; Ms Cliodhna O’Neill, assistant secretary general; Mr. Martin Clohessy, assistant secretary general; Ms Yvonne Keating, chief inspector; and Mr. Kevin Colman, principal officer. We are also joined by Ms Georgina Hughes-Elders, principal officer from the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, who is attending in a representative capacity. We are also joined by officials from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, including Mr. Seamus McCarthy, Comptroller and Auditor General, who is a permanent witness to the committee, and Mr. Pat Mullen, audit manager. They are all very welcome.

Before we begin, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references the witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present, or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. Witnesses are, however, expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Witnesses are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity.

I call on the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, for his opening statement.

The appropriation account for Vote 26 - education and youth records gross expenditure of just over €11.9 billion in 2024. This represented a 10% increase in spending year on year. The expenditure is accounted for under a single spending programme for first, second and early years education distributed across 16 subheads. Subheads A15 and A16 relate to payments for the development of schools infrastructure totalling €1.44 billion in 2024. These will the be main focus for the next planned meeting with the Accounting Officer, scheduled for 16 April 2026. The other expenditure subheads relate mainly to recurrent spending, the focus of today's meeting.

The Department’s own operating costs are charged to subheads A1 and A2, and amounted to €163 million in 2024, which was up 17% from the €139 million spent in 2023. This expenditure includes the salaries and expenses of the national educational psychological service, NEPS, which operates as a specialist division of the Department.

Subheads A3 to A7, inclusive, relate to pay costs in respect of teachers, special needs assistants and administrative and other staff in first and second-level schools. These totalled €7.2 billion in 2024. Subhead A8 provides for pension costs of former teachers and other school staff, which amounted to €1.56 billion in 2024.

Grants payable to individual schools, education and training boards and other educational organisations amounted to €709 million in 2024. Expenditure on school transport totalled €512 million, up from €382 million in 2023.

On the receipts side, appropriations-in-aid of the Vote amounted to €506 million in 2024. Most of those receipts comprised pension-related contributions deducted from the salaries of current education sector employees.

I issued a clear audit opinion in relation to the appropriation account for 2024. I drew attention to two matters disclosed by the Accounting Officer in the statement on internal financial control in respect of material instances of non-compliance with procurements rules, and payroll overpayments totalling €8.4 million outstanding at the year end. There were recovery arrangements in respect of only 36% of that latter amount, and payroll overpayments totalling €495,000 had been written off by the Department in 2024.

One of the reports on this morning’s agenda examines the Department’s controls over grants to support the operation of recognised schools. As I mentioned earlier, grants totalling €709 million were paid out in 2024, under a wide range of schemes. As most school staff salaries are paid directly from the Vote, these grant payments represent the main source of funding for schools to meet their running costs. It may be worth noting here that school meal grant funding is paid to schools by the Department of Social Protection.

Most of the grant funding the Department of Education and Youth provides to schools is allocated on a per capita basis, using enrolment data supplied by the schools, and recorded on two enrolment recording systems – one for primary schools and one for second-level schools. The personal public service number, or PPSN, issued by the Department of Social Protection allows each student to be uniquely identified, but the number is not a mandatory record field in either of the enrolment systems, and the two systems are not integrated. PPSNs are recorded and can be verified for almost all primary school pupils, but around 3% of the recorded enrolments on the second-level system did not have a recorded PPSN or have PPSNs that are not verified. This potentially compromises the integrity of the data used to calculate grant entitlements. The examination found that grant calculation procedures varied across sections of the Department and found instances where there was a lack of documentation of control checks reportedly carried out. In addition, a long-identified control weakness of the Department relying on spreadsheets to calculate grant amounts has not been addressed.

Since 2010, the Department has confirmed 15 cases of enrolment irregularities involving overpayments totalling €1.4 million to schools. A further five suspected enrolment irregularity cases were under investigation. A total of 12 cases had been referred to An Garda Síochána. However, it was noted that the Department’s internal controls had not identified the irregularities, which had generally come to light through whistleblowers.

The report recommends the Department strengthens its risk management practices relating to the risk of enrolment fraud. It also recommends that the Department prioritises the development of an integrated ICT system for calculating enrolment-based grants.

The quality of education provided in schools is critical to the lives and futures of pupils, as well as a factor in ensuring social benefit is obtained from the resources spent under the Vote.

The Education Act 1998 provides for the establishment of an inspectorate operating within the Department to provide such assurance. The second report before the committee today examines how the Department monitors and measures the impact of primary and post-primary school inspections. The report was published in September 2024.

Performance measures are essential for allowing the Department and its stakeholders to assess whether the Department's inspectorate is meeting its objectives and priorities. The examination found that the Department published only a single output measure in relation to the inspectorate in the annual Revised Estimates for public services, that is, the total number of inspections conducted annually. No target had been set for this measure.

Since September 2016, the inspectorate has used an ICT system, the inspection management information system, IMIS, to record information on its school inspection activity, including for individual schools, their history of inspection, inspection type, inspection outcomes and recommendations. However, the examination identified issues with the quality of data held on the system. Specifically, some entries recorded under the inspection type field related to advisory work and school placement appeals. When these non-inspection activities were excluded, the data indicated that a school may, on average, have been subject to some form of inspection visit at least every two years. Schools, on average, appeared to have been subject to an inspection resulting in a published inspection report only once every four years. In the absence of relevant benchmarks or targets, it is not possible to determine whether this frequency of inspection is adequate.

The report makes for recommendations. The Department's inspectorate accepted all the recommendations and committed to timelines for implementation. Given the elapse of time since the report was published, the Accounting Officer may be able to provide the committee with an update in relation to their implementation.

I thank Mr. McCarthy. I now ask the Secretary General, Ms McNally, to deliver the opening statement on behalf of the Department of Education and Youth. As set out in the letter of invitation, she has five minutes in which to do so.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the other committee members for their time and the invitation to discuss the Department of Education and Youth's Appropriation Account for 2024 and some key topics they have identified. The Cathaoirleach has already introduced my colleagues so I will not repeat the information. We have provided the committee with briefing material, which I hope has been of some assistance.

As the committee is aware, the Department of education is responsible for funding, policy development and oversight to support the provision of education and youth services. Our gross expenditure in 2024 was €11.9 billion. Net pay and superannuation accounted for approximately 75% of this, providing for over 154,000 public servants and pensioners. Further expenditure covered grants to schools, including capitation payments, teacher education, school transport and the schools building programme. The capital programme accounted for approximately €1.48 billion, or 12% of gross expenditure. I am aware that it has been agreed that the capital programme will be the subject of another meeting of this committee, on 16 April. Colleagues from the planning and building unit will join me on that occasion to answer questions.

It was necessary to seek a gross Supplementary Estimate of €1.088 billion in 2024. A total of €571 million of this was for current expenditure, with about €277 million of it to cover Government decisions on non-core expenditure, such as expenditure on school transport, the almost 18,000 Ukrainian children in our schools, cost-of-living supports for schools and families, and retrospective public pay deals. A total of €517 million in capital funding was to enhance the schools building programme. The balance of the Supplementary Estimate for current expenditure, €294 million, or 2% of the overall allocation, was for the provision of core service requirements, mostly related to payroll.

A very significant amount of work has recently been undertaken in the area of curriculum reform to ensure children and young people, from early years and primary school to junior cycle and senior cycle, are offered high-quality learning experiences relevant to the world of today and tomorrow.

With regard to school transport, in January 2025, over 181,000 tickets had been issued for the current school year. This figure includes over 24,400 children with special educational needs. The total expenditure in 2024 was €512 million. There was an increase in investment of more than 120% between 2019 and the 2024–25 school year. This increase is due to 53% more students availing of the scheme, a significant increase in the number of children with special educational needs, and significant inflationary increases due to labour, vehicle and fuel costs. Bus Éireann reported challenges in sourcing contractors and drivers in some areas. This is against a backdrop of driver shortages nationally. Every effort is being made to address these challenges.

With regard to the critical area of children and young people with special educational needs, over €3 billion of the Department's budget is now targeted to address their needs. In this school year, there are 103% more special classes than there were in 2020. Five new special schools were established under the patronage of local ETBs. The additional four special schools we are building this year will bring to 20 the number of new special schools established since 2019.

While there has been major investment in mainstream schools, special classes and special schools, there is still a significant amount to be done to ensure all children with additional needs can access a high-quality and inclusive education in their locality. This year will see us following through on engagement with approximately 30,000 children and young people with special educational needs, their families, advocates, teachers, SNAs, school leaders and a range of other stakeholders, as part of the review of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act, to plan for the future and deliver actions to help us achieve a shared vision. There are a range of other initiatives completed over 2024 and 2025 in the special education space that will come to fruition in 2026. I am happy to discuss these further with the members.

The overall quality of the Irish education system continues to be ranked highly in international comparisons. The most recent cycle of the Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA, a well-regarded OECD study, showed that, for reading, Ireland is ranked first out of 37 OECD countries, second out of 81 countries, and first among EU countries. In science, we have moved from 22nd in the group of 81 countries to 12th. In maths, we have moved up from 21st to 11th. Other studies highlight our strong rate of retaining students to the end of senior cycle and the relative socioeconomic equity in the system. The IMF report of last July highlighted the high level of expenditure efficiency in education in Ireland based on comparing investment with outcomes. It also highlighted the need to continue to invest in education to maintain a strong economy and fair society.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. I look forward, with my colleagues, to answering members' questions.

I thank Ms McNally for that. Please note that we will suspend our meeting at about 12 noon for a short break of about ten or 15 minutes. I will now open the floor to members. Our lead speaker today is Deputy Bennett, who has 15 minutes. All other members will have ten minutes. If time allows, I will allow members a round of supplementary questions, but for a shorter timeframe.

I welcome everybody from the Department of Education and Youth. My first line of questioning will be on special needs assistants, SNAs. As a former chairperson of Cavan and Monaghan Education and Training Board, CMETB, former employee of CMETB and former student of CMETB, and now as a mother of children, I believe the position on SNAs has been chaotic. I refer to the cuts affecting special schools. With regard to the immense hurt among families and schools right across the State, it would be very useful today to bring some clarity to the situation. The Taoiseach said the Government did not sign off on the cuts. Who did sign off on them?

I thank the Deputy for her question and public representatives for all their interventions in recent days. As our Minister said yesterday, we take collective responsibility for the failure of communication. We absolutely apologise for the upset caused to parents. It has resulted in much misinformation, etc. Parents do believe there are cuts. Genuinely, I have to say to the Deputy that we are building the resources. The fact of the matter is that there is funding for 1,117 additional SNAs this September. That is in addition to the money that was announced yesterday.

We are constantly building the resource for children with special educational needs. I can go through a list. The Deputy heard me say in my opening statement that there are double the number of special classes since 2020 alone. We are working hard to ensure that every parent has assurances that their children are going to get a place and we have delivered on that, with twice the number of special classes since 2020, 20 new special schools. About 65 of the existing special schools have building projects happening with them at the moment. There is huge investment. I assure parents that there are no cuts. We are continuing to put money in that is delivering important services like SNAs on the ground.

I thank Ms McNally for that, but again parents did get letters that said there were going to be cuts. Who authorised that? Who said those letters should go out?

We all bear responsibility for this. I want to set this out clearly. The National Council for Special Education is the statutory agency that operates services and resources for special educational needs. It operates this-----

Is Ms McNally blaming the council?

No, I want to be clear on that collective responsibility. It is the one who operates and sends out the letters.

Did the Minister not know the letters were going out?

The Minister would have had awareness, just as we did, of the general policy on this. This is the public accounts committee. We have to make sure that Exchequer funding is used to the best effect.

Is Ms McNally saying that the Minister did not know, or she did know?

Absolutely, the Department and the Minister knew the general policy.

Did they know that the letters were going out?

Broadly. They knew that the NCSE was doing its job. This is its job to do this.

Who made the policy for the letters to go out? Why would letters go out if there were not going to be cuts?

The policy has always existed. Again, this is the public accounts committee here. It is important that with funding, whether we have 25,000 or 30,000 SNAs, the policy is that we have to make sure that they are targeted at the children who most need them. The resources have to move. They are not cuts. A total of 140,000 children move in the system every year. There might be 60,000 or 70,000 coming in. There are 60,000 or 70,000 moving into post-primary. Children move and, therefore, the resources have to move with them. There is a policy that authorised the NCSE to do exactly what it did. However, on the communication and the fact that a lot of them issued at the same time, we have apologised for the communication.

Did the Minister direct those letters to go out? That is all I want to know.

No, the Minister would not have directed letters. The NCSE did its job in communicating and operating the scheme.

Was the Minister aware that the letters were going out?

The Minister would have been broadly aware that resources were being moved.

I want to move on. In response to the chaos, it was unbelievable that €19 million was plucked out a cloud or a secret account somewhere. Where did that money come from? It was €19 million overnight. It is unbelievable. Why could it not have come the year before in the budget? Why did the parents have to go through this chaos only for €19 million to appear?

It is regrettable that anybody senses chaos because there has been a very structured, efficient------

Ms McNally should be in my job, then she would see the chaos because people are flat out getting these letters.

I hear this. I have seen the protests, etc. I absolutely understand. There have been efficient measures doubling the number of special classes-----

Ms McNally cannot say it was efficient. A total of €19 million in one night was plucked out.

I am speaking generally about the provision of resources. We have gone about increasing resources for children and young people in a structured and intensive way to have achieved what has been achieved over the past number of years, albeit that more has to be achieved. On the €19 million, we are in constant engagement with the Department of public expenditure and reform. The investment in education has increased dramatically over the past five years. It has engaged with us very constructively where there is need. When this need emerged-----

I am going to ask the question again. Where did the €19 million come from? Was it from an existing fund? Was it reallocated? Was it a secret fund?

The Department of public expenditure and reform has made that available to us working across government-----

Did it just pluck it out of the sky, and it did not have a budget for it?

I do not want to speak on its behalf, but I presume it has contingencies for emergencies and needs that emerge, so it can be responsive to needs that emerge.

That is a fantastic contingency fund - €19 million. That is brilliant.

There is a representative from the Department of public expenditure here. The Deputy might want to direct her question as to when the application went in.

That would be fantastic.

We are very grateful for it. That will fund in or around 500 additional SNAs, which, on top of the 1,717 that have been funded for September, is significant. Again, it demonstrates the Government's commitment to meeting the needs of children and young people.

Will Ms Hughes-Elders answer where the €19 million was plucked from?

On the €19 million, we are still working out the details of that. We are engaging internally and we are engaging with the Department of education at the moment.

How can the Department just find €19 million? Where is the detail?

We are engaging with the Department of education at the moment and internally on that.

The Department was aware that it was going to be in need of additional SNAs last year before the budget and whether it is confident that it will be able recruit them as well is another issue. As Ms Hughes-Elder said, the money was there. It was always sitting in an account, but we could not make it known to families that children needed SNAs before this and before the chaos and the letters went out. There is no forward planning as far as I can see within the Department. If we know students are going to need SNAs the following year, why was that not budgeted for? Why had the Department not been asked for that money? Why do we need to go through the chaos after the letters go to the parents?

I have to remind us here that the Exchequer has invested hugely. In this coming September, there will be 1,717 extra SNAs funded in the system. That comes on top of 1,600 SNAs in the previous year and in or around 1,000 a year for the past number of years. The Department of the public expenditure and the Exchequer have made a significant amount of available. They also funded 860 special education teachers. There is strong investment. We are forward planning. There is significant forward planning happening all the time.

I do not call €19 million appearing overnight forward planning.

In relation to the €19 million again, I would like to go back to Ms Hughes-Elders. Will other services be cut to fund this €19 million?

We are negotiating-----

Is Ms Hughes-Elders saying that other services will be cut to find the €19 million?

We are negotiating internally between the Department of education and ourselves on an ongoing basis in relation to where moneys are coming from-----

Are we going to find the additional SNAs?

We should be able to recruit SNAs. We do not seem to have huge difficulty in recruiting SNAs. I hope that remains the case.

To try to get some clarity, can we get a timeframe on when the request for the €19 million was made to the Department of public expenditure?

That request was only made in recent days when it was decided not to move some SNAs from some schools. Remember-----

It was a reactive measure. Again, I have to go back to Ms Hughes-Elders. The Department cannot just pluck €19 million out of the sky and not think about services. I want her to guarantee me today that no other services are going to be cut.

We are still engaging internally and between Departments in terms of------

That is not the correct answer. The Department should know exactly where this money is coming from.

We have only been asked for moneys in recent days and we are still working through this.

Back to Ms McNally again, this is like tick-tock. Why did the Department not know how many SNAs it was going to need? Why did it come to the last minute that we had to go to the Department and ask for this money?

We have over 23,000 SNAs already funded in our schools. It has been acknowledged in recent days that in some schools several children move on into first year. They required SNAs when they were in fourth, fifth and sixth classes. They have moved on now. That school may not have the same level of need. That school may be able to go from having four SNAs to three SNAs.

Will Ms McNally explain that again? What is it about them going from third class to fourth class? Of course, they are going to need the SNA the next year again.

No, the post-primary school. For example, if five children move into first year, it might be the post-primary school that needs that SNA. It might be that in the primary school there is less need.

Is there no pre-planning? I am talking about children coming into primary school. The Department should know which children are going to need SNAs before they go there.

In many instances, we know what their care needs are before------

The Department obviously does not because €19 million had to be asked for overnight. What I am trying to get to the blunt of here, is there no pre-planning put in place before children go to school so it is known how many SNAs are needed per class?

I am going to move on because my time is running out. I ask Ms Hughes-Elders to send me and the committee a breakdown of where the €19 million. is coming form I want to ensure that it is not coming form other services.

Regarding voluntary contributions, for me as a mother and for many other parents, primary and secondary education in this country is supposed to be free for students.

However, I can tell Ms McNally about the number of parents who have come to me complaining about voluntary contributions they have to pay to schools to ensure their children are not ostracised in the classroom because they might not be able to participate in extracurricular activities because they have not paid the voluntary contribution. It was reported last year that parents had to pay €23 million in voluntary contributions in our free education system. What is the Department's estimate of voluntary contributions that parents have to pay to make sure their children get educated and are able to participate in extracurricular activities?

We have to be really clear that no parent can be mandated-----

They can.

They cannot be required to pay, and if we find out that a parent is being required to pay or his or her child is being disadvantaged because the parent or guardian has not paid, I would ask that this be brought to our attention and we will contact that individual.

I have heard complaints of children being denied lockers, diaries and extracurricular activities. This goes on all the time. I am sure Ms McNally knows about it. It is happening. The Department is not funding our education system completely, which is why parents have to step in to make up the difference. Ms McNally is telling me that she is not aware of this.

I am aware of the €23 million. We have addressed this in a number of ways, number one of which has been making it really clear that a school cannot mandate it and cannot disadvantage a child. We have made lots of interventions in this regard. For example, diaries are now part of the free school books scheme. As the Deputy knows, the State is investing about €170 million every year in free school books and free classroom resources.

The diary is not included.

The diary is allowed to be included.

It is not included. I can tell Ms McNally about schools where it is not included. The children have to have the diary for teachers and parents to sign every day, and if they do not have the diary, everybody knows they have not paid.

If the Deputy wants to bring examples to our attention of any schools that are doing that-----

I will bring them to the Department's attention afterwards.

The diary is now part of the free school books scheme.

Ms McNally does not think this is acceptable. No school should be doing this to pupils.

No school can require a voluntary contribution. It can ask for it but it cannot disadvantage any child because a parent has chosen not to pay or cannot afford to pay that voluntary contribution.

Is the figure of €23 million in voluntary contributions reasonable?

Absolutely not. We hear school principals say they do not have enough money and they have to do this. That is why we have worked really hard to increase capitation. Capitation has increased by 50% in primary and 28% in post-primary over the past number of years to ensure schools have more money and can pay their bills. There are a range of other things we have done.

But they do not have enough money. If schools do not have enough money to meet their overheads, what do they do?

If they do not have enough money, they should contact the financial support services unit, FSSU, which will help them. There are a range of mechanisms. We found out recently that some schools were not using electricity frameworks, etc., where the bills are much cheaper if one uses a Government framework we have put in place. There are a range of measures to help bring their costs down and the FSSU is the particular unit where people are employed to help schools to manage these issues.

So Ms McNally is outlining to me that if schools do not have enough money to pay their overheads, they do not need to go near parents but can go to the FSSU.

Absolutely.

Deputy Bennett asked for a briefing note on the request of €19 million. It would be helpful if we could get the detail now as to whether that is additional funding being provided to the Department or is a reallocation within the current funding to the Department. Could we get that detail now before I allow our next speaker in?

The Department of Education and Youth is seeking new funding.

Has that been agreed by the Department of public expenditure at this stage?

There would need to be a memorandum for Government.

As a public representative, I do not think I could pick a more personal issue than that of SNAs. I do not think I am unique in that. Across the House, the role of SNAs is hugely cherished by people in all political parties. I want to drill down into the Appropriation Accounts and how what happens in the budget is translated into how it is spent. In the budget, it was indicated that €850 million would result in 25,000 SNAs, which would be an increase of approximately 1,700. Is that correct?

That is correct.

How does the Department come up with a figure of 1,700 additional SNAs that are needed? How is that number calculated?

As part of our forward planning, we look at the number of additional special classes we expect to require. As the Deputy knows, there is one teacher and there are two SNAs in every special class to deal on average with about six children. We look at the number of extra special schools or special school places that we might require and we then look at our-----

So it is essentially looking at future needs for September 2026.

It involves future needs but also existing need. The NCSE would have a lot of information from being out in schools all the time about any needs that are there. It carries out these exceptional reviews, and if a school needs more, it looks for it.

So based on that, there would be an additional 1,700 SNAs-----

Funding for 1,700 SNAs.

Sorry, funding for an additional 1,700 SNAs. There was no expectation of not meeting the demand in September 2026.

What was the Deputy's question?

The Department felt that this would meet or broadly meet the demand that was coming in 2026.

We felt that was the case but this did require the NCSE to have discretion where a school had lesser needs. Where there were children in school with less needs, that could be-----

Ms McNally has hit the nail on the head. If the allocation did not include the €19 million that is essentially required to keep current SNAs in their current posts, was the budget put before us as Oireachtas Members contingent on the NCSE review taking place and 500 SNAs being reallocated?

The job of the NCSE is to make sure that the resource that is there is used to best effect. The Deputy probably knows that there may be small schools that are very small-----

To be clear, the budget that was put before the Oireachtas was contingent on funding for 1,700 SNAs and a review of reallocating existing resources.

The NCSE reviews resources every year. What happened this year was that-----

How can we use a review process that does not have any financial implications - it being based on the needs of children - to frame budgetary policy?

I will call on Ms Mannion to-----

How could the Department predict that the number would be 500, 300 or 1,700? It has no way of knowing the number that would come out of the review.

But we do know that where we have 23,000 SNAs and 140,000 children moving in the system, and there is a lot of movement, there would always be a margin just like we knew the schools that were going to need more-----

Does Ms McNally accept that 500 is a significant figure?

Absolutely. It is a significant figure, but in terms of the 23,000 who are there and the-----

It is even a significant percentage of the 23,000.

It is, but again-----

My point is that when the Department was framing the budget requirements for 2026, it based it on two things. It based it on the additional funding for 1,700 to meet the incoming demand but it also banked on a reallocation by the NCSE.

I will ask Ms Mannion to come in on that.

Our initial allocation provided for the funding identified. The Deputy is also aware that we would have had a supplementary allocation, which is additional funding voted through by the Government on this.

There are a number of components to supplementary funding, some of which are pay deal-related, but some are related to increased need. It is not the case that the NCSE is mandated to reduce SNAs by a certain number to live within an allocation-----

Ms Mannion has hit my next question. She predicted it.

------and that is why-----

Surely if the NCSE was not able to meet the re-allocation of 500 SNAs, the Department would require a Supplementary Estimate.

No, because the way this system works is that the NCSE looks at the care needs of the children in the system. The circulars were issued and updated, and identified that need can increase, remain the same or be reduced. We have already talked about the significant number of children that are moving across the system, so when the NCSE is looking it has to identify-----

With respect, Ms Mannion is talking about the review and the policy. I am just talking about the budget because-----

I understand that.

I want to know that first before we move on. My question was a simple question. Did the budget that the Department put forward to the Oireachtas for 2026 require up to 500 SNAs to be reallocated in order for its budgetary proposal to succeed?

As the Secretary General outlined, the initial budgetary allocation was to provide mainstream special classes and special schools. We hoped that the number identified would meet the level of need. Throughout the year, we identified increasing need and we got a Supplementary Estimate, which was €64 million in relation to special educational assistance. That was made up of €12.5 million in pay deals, SNAs to support children from Ukraine-----

On what date was that Supplementary Estimate received?

Sorry, it might help if I can assist.

I am very conscious of the time. On what date was that Supplementary Estimate received?

One of my colleagues will be able to provide the date, but-----

What is the approximate date?

I am just saying that it facilitated the increased need. We anticipated increased need and that was facilitated in the Supplementary Estimate. It is really important in the context of-----

Did the Department predict that there would be a Supplementary Estimate either way?

No, because the NCSE is dealing with it as it goes through the process and looking at need. It is really important that in a system of 25,000 SNAs, it is allocating it to the children with the greatest level of need. We are really clear with the movement of 170,000 children across the system each year, the need is going to move. The NCSE will then reallocate in line with the need and then we will support them.

I have a budgetary question. The review is based on need and not on budgetary issues. On the basis that the review happens after the budget, is it not inevitable that there will always be a Supplementary Estimate because the Department is not aware of what that review will indicate?

Need goes up and down. It is not always the case that the review identifies increased need. In some cases, as it did here, it identified a reduced need-----

Is Ms Mannion suggesting that there could be a surplus or a need for a Supplementary Estimate?

Exactly. That is the whole nature of this process and the NCSE is facilitating the Department to do that and if it comes back to us-----

The Department put forward the requirement for an additional 1,700 places, which was dependent on some element of reallocation. Was 1,700 a sufficient contingency to put forward?

The process will facilitate the allocation going up and down, as well as redistribution across the system. When we put forward those numbers, it was expected that we would be able to provide for the level of need in the system. When the need became greater, that was when the NCSE engaged with us, and we engaged further.

The Exchequer has been responsive. The Department of public expenditure has been very responsive in recent years. Where extra need does emerge that we did not plan for-----

This is the point I am making-----

-----we do, as part of our Supplementary Estimate, look for additional funding where that is required.

It is also important to say that the Department's overall budget Estimate was dependent on the review of the NCSE.

It is really important to note that it cannot be the case that SNAs remain in the exact location they are if 170,000 children are moving through the system.

I accept that this is an incredibly important principle for the child.

It is also important for the adult in the room, who is the SNA. That is the reason in May 2025, the redeployment circular and process was outlined. It is also important to note that the Government made an important decision last Monday night to facilitate the additional funding. Three new steps have been agreed, which were already in train. The SNA workforce deployment plan-----

Ms Mannion is, again, going ahead of my questioning. The Government was forced on Monday night to introduce additional funding to prevent the redeployment of the 500 SNAs. That is what the €19 million is based on. Is that correct?

It is a positive response. Across government, there was recognition that there was a need here. There was recognition that this had been handled-----

A far more positive response would have been if it had been planned. Why was the workforce planning not examined in advance of that decision?

Huge forward planning goes into special educational needs, but people will be aware that both in Ireland and internationally the prevalence rates are increasing all the time.

Should that have happened in advance of the letters going out?

The NCSE has to continue to do reviews all the time. That is part of its job. Its staff has to go out and see what the need is on the ground because the numbers are increasing in addition to those who are seeking to move on.

Ms McNally must accept that if a school gets a letter saying that it is going to lose three, four or five SNAs, that will have a profound and critical impact on it. If any of the members had known about that information before it went out, we would have known that it was an alarm bell. Whether it was the NCSE, the Department or the Minister, I do not know who knew about it. However, when someone recognised the impact on schools, did somebody not say, "We are going to have a problem here"?

I want to answer that question. Over 60% of schools were actually increasing their resource or staying the same. That is really important.

So 40% were losing their resource.

Of the schools that were losing, many were losing a small proportion of what they have. It was a small number - I do not have it on hand - but it was a small number of schools that were losing the larger numbers we heard about in the media. It was not a robot that went out and looked at the need. The SENOs that went out were teachers, some were school principals, some were therapists and some were SNAs.

The question was about the letters and their impact.

They went through a very fair process.

The question was about the letters and their impact.

The Deputy was right. We have acknowledged that sending out a letter to a school informing it that it was going to losing some of its SNAs was going to cause distress for the school and parents.

There is actually a back story to this. The process those SENOs used to assess the need in schools was fair and objective. They did not go out with the intention of moving resources. They went to examine the need in schools and to see how many children had a need.

Is Ms McNally happy that this review was applied equally across different areas?

The SENOs do not have the authority to make a decision there and then. They do up a report. They tell they school they are coming. They gather the data. They go out and talk to people, including teachers. They look at the need and the plan that is there for every child-----

Was it done differently in different places?

Sorry, I am getting to that. Then they come back. It is a review panel that actually decides what school is going to receive movement. That is to standardise it and to make sure it is fair. It is also to make sure that every SENO has an evidence base. What we have learned from this is that we need to communicate better. What was the evidence base? What do SENOs look at? Why do they make decisions to give more or to keep it the same?

We have to demonstrate to parents and schools that this is a thorough process and that it ensures that children who have needs in a school will continue to have those needs met.

I thank the witnesses for being here this morning. I also want to start on the SNA issue. Ms McNally was quite clear earlier that she accepts collective responsibility in relation to the approach taken on the SNAs. What level of interaction did the Department have with the NCSE on the review in recent weeks? Were there minuted meetings? Could Ms Mcnally describe the level of interaction?

We always engage with the NCSE every day of the week. We work really closely with it given the important job it does. A lot of the engagement on this would have occurred last year. There was a lot of engagement last year and a circular was sent out to schools, I think it was last May, to say we are going to be conducting a lot more reviews in the 2025-26 school year. Things had changed. There was Covid-19, the war in Ukraine and other things in recent years.

Ms McNally referred to a lot of the interaction occurred last year. Prior to the triggering of the letters being issued, was there little interaction between the Department and the NCSE?

No, we would have regular engagement. We would have almost daily informal engagement.

I am talking about this specific review not general engagement.

Our focus is on ensuring that there are sufficient places for September and so on. Most of our work is on that. On the review process, we were absolutely aware that the reviews were ongoing.

Was the Department aware that the letters were about to be issued?

Yes, we were aware that letters were being issued.

Did Ms McNally see any of these letters?

I personally did not. I am not sure if we had sight. I might ask Ms Mannion.

We engage intensively with the NCSE on all the components, including this issue.

That engagement with the Department is around ensuring the process is robust and clear. We would not have sight of all the content of individual letters the NCSE sends. We may have seen the broad outline of the letters' content. I think that-----

Would the Department have seen the template letter that was to be issued?

We do not describe it as a "template letter". That is an operational matter.

The letters were quite similar. Obviously, each specific school got a different letter.

The content of the letter is an operational matter for the NCSE. The Secretary General and the Government have spoken clearly on this. The process, the outcomes and the communication were not what we would have wanted them to be.

I understand all that.

It is really important to say that it has been decided to provide additional funding for this year.

I understand that too.

Three additional steps now need to be taken.

Can I just-----

I am sorry Deputy; if I can I just finish, there are three additional steps that now need to be taken.

I am sorry; can I ask my questions? Did the Department have sight of the nature of the letters that were being issued?

The Department was aware that the letters said whether there was to be an increase or a reduction or if the number was to remain the same. The content was a matter for the NCSE.

What is the average salary of an SNA?

The salary range for an SNA goes from about €31,000 to about €49,000 at the top of the scale after several years of service.

If we take €35,000 as the average, the €19 million equates to about 500 whole-time SNAs.

Yes, it is about 500 whole-time SNAs.

This will impact on far more than 500 SNAs because many are not whole-time. They are part-time. I am aware of one particular school that was told it was losing 1.34 of a post but that impacted five SNAs. Was that factored into the equation at all? The reason it was impacting five is that the person who was being redeployed was on 0.66 of a post. The remainder of the cut had to be made up by reducing the hours of four other SNAs. A reduction of 1.34 of a post was impacting on five SNAs. The figure of 500 SNAs is therefore very misleading. A lot more than 500 SNAs were impacted by the review.

I hear the Deputy. In terms of the personal impact on SNAs, I have not yet had an opportunity to say that we hugely value SNAs. I think that is evident in the fact that we have massively increased the number of them over the last number of years. We really value the work they do. On the employment arrangements, we give schools a certain number of whole-time equivalents. They then decide how that is used.

I understand that but the point I am making is that, with the best will in the world and the best management in the world, in many cases, the principals have little choice but to spread that across a number of SNAs.

I am not sure about that. I think most-----

This is a real-life example. A reduction of 1.34 posts was impacting on five SNAs.

Okay. I think that would be quite unusual. A lot of SNAs are full-time. On SNA posts being moved to another school, I might talk about the redeployment panel. A huge amount of work has been done. It is very close to being published. There have been something like 15 meetings with Fórsa and other stakeholders to get that redeployment panel up and running. While I hope they know this already and are not worried, that panel will ensure that SNAs will have the option to be employed elsewhere. That option will be available to them.

That is part of the issue here with regard to this approach being taken without a redeployment policy being established and without the definition of an SNA under the 2014 circular being reviewed. All of these points have been made in recent days. How would Ms McNally describe the approach taken by the NCSE in recent weeks? The Minister has said she finds it regrettable. How would Ms McNally describe it?

The NCSE did its job, which was to reach out to schools to see if they had sufficient resources to meet the needs of children and young people and whether some of them needed the same, less or more. That was the NCSE's job and it did it. However, we all accept that it should have been communicated differently. The Department takes absolute responsibility for that as well. As the Minister has said, given that so much work has been done on the redeployment panel, we should have published it first. Again, huge work was done with the sector. Lots of people knew lots about it. We should have got that out first so that SNAs had absolute security and assurance that, if they were asked to move, they could be employed elsewhere through this redeployment panel. This approach works really well for teachers. We have redeployed 3,000 teachers over the last ten years via a similar redeployment panel. We should have done that. We will be making that panel available very soon.

Ms McNally would characterise it as miscommunication rather than the wrong approach or a deeply insensitive approach being taken. Schools receiving these letters, the impacts on students and parents, and the NCSE being ill-prepared as regards the redeployment policy, the workforce plan and the review of the circular not being in place are more than miscommunication. They are substantive issues.

I have to acknowledge the amount of work that has been done with the trade union and with the sector to bring the redeployment panel almost to completion. Huge work has been done on the workforce development plan. We have engaged with 13,000 SNAs. There have been 50 different meetings to ensure we can deliver a really good workforce development plan for SNAs. That has never been done before. This is the first time. A couple of years of work have been put into this to ensure the work of SNAs is valued and that their responsibilities, their required training and continuing professional development, and their relationship with teachers and principals are clear. It will be really positive. We are committed to getting that sorted in the next couple of months.

I will move on from the SNA issue and turn to capitation grants. The Department operates a per capita capitation grant at primary level and secondary level and in special schools. I put it to the witnesses that this is not a rational approach. A primary school may be dry, warm, well insulated and easy to heat but there are also old primary schools that are largely made up of prefabs and that are cold and damp with high maintenance costs. How does it make sense that both types of school get the same capitation payment per student? I have real experience of this from going into an old school that is largely made up of prefabs. The floors and ceilings are sagging. The school has dehumidifiers and heaters on constantly. They face regular maintenance costs from bringing in electricians to deal with fuses having blown due to dampness. It simply does not make sense to have a flat rate. It does not take these issues into account. Do the witnesses agree this should be reviewed?

It is a very good question. This is actually something we are looking at for the future. At the moment, there are 4,000 schools around the country and we only have the Department. There is no intermediate agency like the HSE, Tusla or a local authority. The Department does a huge amount on policy but it also does a lot on operations. Systems are sometimes put in place for administrative reasons. The Deputy will know that we have increased capitation very significantly for schools. There has been a 50% increase at primary level and a 28% increase at post-primary level. There are a range of other schemes available to schools, including the emergency works and minor works programmes. Some €30 million in minor works grants goes out to schools every year. There is also summer works funding. We have just announced a massive programme of summer works. Solar panels are funded for schools. We are doing a huge amount to try to help schools.

I appreciate that. How many schools make contact with the financial support services unit annually?

I might ask my colleague Ms O'Neill to come in on this. Schools make contact with the FSSU all the time to ask questions or to seek advice. As to the number of schools that consider themselves in trouble, of our 4,000 schools, about 60 made contact with the FSSU to look for support. Of that group, only a small number needed support by way of advance funding.

That is effectively less than 2% of schools.

A lot of schools have questions about looking for support.

Earlier on, Ms McNally outlined assistance with management issues, procurement and so on and how savings can be found. Does that result in additional payments being made to schools?

To date, it has resulted in advance payments being made.

They are not additional payments.

The FSSU has found that it is sometimes a cash flow issue. As I have said, there have been massive increases in capitation over three years. Those increases might not feel massive to schools. I should say there has been a significant increase in capitation to schools. Sometimes a school will know that a certain grant is coming. We only pay grants at certain times. It is not every fortnight; it is every certain number of months. It is often a cash flow issue and the unit will help the schools there.

To clarify, it is more an issue of timing than an issue of additional payments.

It is at the moment. If there are more fundamental concerns, we will work those through with the school.

Is it possible that it can result in additional payments?

It has not happened to date but it is not outside the realms of possibility that it could.

I will leave it at that. I thank the witnesses.

As a mum of nine-year-old twin girls and as a TD for one of the youngest areas in the country, I cannot emphasise enough the importance of SNAs in our school system. We absolutely have to do everything we can to support schools, teachers and SNAs.

I have listened to everything the witnesses have said this morning. They have said the SENOs are doing their job on a fair and objective basis and that the review panel is supposed to make a fair determination, yet something went wrong. Something went seriously wrong. What happened was not fair or clear and the whole system of determination was opaque. Somebody has to take responsibility for that. The frustration and the anger are palpable. All of us, including parents and schools, feel it.

We have acknowledged that this was not handled properly. The Deputy's colleague was asking whether it was all just about communication or whether it was more fundamental. A lot of it was about communication because I think we failed to properly explain that the resources for children with complex needs are increasing year on year. There has been no strain in that regard. Year on year, we are increasing resources. The data is available but I think we failed to ensure that parents understood that.

I accept that but did the review panel not look at a table of schools’ current and future allocations and say that, with a reduction in an SNA number from nine to 3.8, something was wrong and ask how it was fair? Did the review panel understand what was fair? What occurred was not fair.

I cannot speak for them but they would have had in front of them a detailed report setting out, for example, that 20 children with very complex needs had moved on and that 15 remained, or that some children who originally needed significant care had, thanks to great teaching, great mainstream teachers, great special education teachers and great SNAs, made progress, had become more independent and needed less care. They would have looked at that.

Whatever process you come up with, that cannot happen. A school cannot go from nine SNAs to 3.8 SNAs. Can Ms McNally confirm for us that this will not happen and give us comfort in that regard, and also confirm that whatever review panel is making decisions will actually be making ones that are fair?

I cannot confirm the exact position around numbers but I can confirm that we are going to look at the process, how it is communicated, how the evidence is given, how parents find out about the outcome and how outcomes are communicated to schools. We are committed to that.

I suggest to the Secretary General that if there is a reduction of more than one SNA in any school, it should go through her office. We cannot allow ourselves to be in this situation again. It is just not acceptable.

I am going to move on. I want to talk about school operating costs. I visit schools in my constituency regularly. They are in various states of repair and many of them are in a very bad state of repair. I was recently in a school that is less than 15 years old. All of the students were wearing their coats, as were all of the teachers. I was wearing my coat. The school receives voluntary contributions and has a lottery, yet the heating was not on in it. I am not sure what the Secretary General's thoughts are on schools that run lotteries every week and ask parents to buy into them. Does the Department have the data on the average operating cost per head on a per-school basis? I am including teachers, SNAs and students.

I will ask my colleague Ms O'Neill to come in on that, but I might make a couple of points first. We have increased capitation very significantly. It will start kicking in-----

I accept that, but-----

Also, there are emergency works, minor works and solar panels.

-----there was no heating on in the school in the winter.

My colleague Ms O'Neill will come in on that. I thank the Deputy.

I thank the Deputy. The Department has done a significant amount of analysis over the last number of years because we now have new data we did not have before, namely, aggregate data on running costs across schools. The analysis of that data allowed us to make a better bid regarding budget 2026. That is how we have been fortunate enough to have a huge increase in capitation-----

Does Ms O'Neill have the data I requested? Is it collated?

Could I have clarification on what the Deputy is looking for exactly? There is no single rate regarding running costs-----

I want to know whether a school, at the end of every school year, can tell the Department what its average per-head operating cost was in order that the Department can target the schools that actually need help. In this way, it could determine whether certain schools need more solar panels or something else to help them to operate more efficiently so they will not have to ask parents to enter lotteries every week or ask for higher voluntary contributions? Is the Department targeting the schools that are most in need?

No. The school grants are on a per capita basis. We are conducting a review of the school estate at present that will provide us with more data in relation to the condition of school buildings and so on. Our intention is to layer that with data we already have in relation to schools. Let me refer to where we are providing significant support. As the Secretary General referred to, we are aware that there are schools that are not getting the best value for money and that perhaps did not-----

How come the Department is aware of that? How does it know which schools are not getting value for money?

Because we can see that they are not parties to Office of Government Procurement contracts that have been negotiated. For instance, we can see that, over time, they will have paid significantly more for electricity or heating, or for another contract-----

What about the schools that do not have the heating on?

-----than other schools. We can see that they have not participated in this regard. We have been working with the management bodies to encourage schools to make use of the savings available to them, as the Secretary General has said. That is really important and it is actually something we would ask Deputies-----

I agree with that, but what about the schools that do not have the heating on in the winter?

We do not have figures on whether schools put the heating on in winter.

I think the Department has a piece of work to do, to be honest.

I thank the Deputy. We are actually doing a really significant piece of work in this space. We hope that because we now have data we will be able to use on an aggregate basis every year, every year, we will have better data on schools' running costs. It will help us to pinpoint where there are increased running costs and get to the nub of those.

I thank Ms O'Neill.

Regarding the grants system, although systemic weaknesses have been acknowledged and identified, why are PPSNs not being used? Why are we still relying on spreadsheets? When is the Department going to set out the timelines and confirm funding for integrated grants IT systems?

We are working on the integrated IT system. We recently got approval for a chief information officer, which is a real game-changer for us and will enable us to do a lot of transformation regarding data and moving away from spreadsheets, etc. We are working on merging the two databases – POD and P-POD – and having them integrated. It is complicated but they will be integrated. PPSNs are very effective for primary schools. We have almost complete data on PPSNs at primary level. At post-primary level, we are not quite there yet. We are making improvements and there is work ongoing. It is not just about that because we also have other data that we use to inform decisions. We are improving it as a result of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.

When will we see the plan for the IT system?

We have a plan at the moment. Does Ms O'Neill want to speak about that?

Yes. I thank the Secretary General. We have a scoping project to develop what we call a single customer view. It is called Learner Path and it will allow us to bring together our two databases, which for historical reasons are separate. There is some transfer and sharing between the two databases at present, but we know it can be improved. We are working through the technicalities at present.

What is the target date?

The target date for finalisation is 2028 but we think we will make significant progress in certain areas before then, because there are things we can do now that we are already starting to do. There will be incremental progress as we move through the timeframe.

In the limited time I have remaining, I wish to refer to school transport. Each of us finds the annual scramble in relation to school transport deeply frustrating. Where is the clear strategy? Is the Department going to update the model? The existing model is simply not working.

Again, 181,000 children are accessing school transport, so it is a success for many. About 24,000 have special educational needs. We accept that, for 2% to 3%, there have been problems in recent years around August, September and October, but these do get resolved. For most children the system is working, but Deputies have very effectively expressed the concern of their constituents regarding it.

I have to highlight the area from Ballyboughal to Lusk. The nearest school is in Swords, but schools in Swords are oversubscribed. There is a bus to Lusk but it is also oversubscribed. I know of over 20 children affected. Their parents are deeply frustrated. Year on year, they look for transport to the school in Lusk but, for various reasons, have their applications refused. It may be because Swords has the nearest school, or they may be told that there is a bus and so on. It is so frustrating for me and for them.

The long-term vision is that we will almost be getting rid of the categories "eligible" and "ineligible" and there will not be kilometre-based rules or rules based on the nearest or next-nearest school. Rules will be relaxed quite significantly.

That is going to cost more money and it does require reform so we are not there yet. We have published a school transport review that has been accepted in principle and annually now, as part of the Estimates process, we will look for that.

For the moment, there are eligible children and ineligible children, and the ineligibles are also called concessionary. Unfortunately, if you ineligible, you are not guaranteed to get a ticket. If you are eligible you will but if you are ineligible or concessionary, it is a matter of whether there is space available on a bus that is delivering for eligible children.

I welcome the reform but when does Ms McNally think we were actually going to see it? Will this new policy be in place for September 2026, or are we going to do the scramble again?

No. First, I have to say there are 53% more children on the scheme in recent years, so they are benefiting from it and we are committed, year on year, to looking to build and move towards that vision I outlined. I hear the Deputy's frustration and I know Deputies get a lot of feedback on it.

I thank Ms McNally.

I thank the witnesses for coming before us. I will start on the issue of the SNAs. I am a bit troubled by the suggestion that the main issue is communication. The witnesses' point is that overall, the SNAs are increasing and if only people knew that. However, the basic point is that if your kid is going to a school, you are an SNA in a school or you are part of a school community, the SNAs are being cut and you think they should not be cut, it is kind of cold comfort to hear, "Do not worry, the overall numbers are going up". I thought the Government effectively recognised that by reversing these cuts. Does Ms McNally not accept that the fundamental issue is the decision of the cuts, as opposed to not communicating overall that the SNA numbers are going up?

Again, I appreciate that every elected representative has had huge contact and has invested a huge amount of time on this. I want to acknowledge that, first of all.

I want to say something as well that I have not had a chance to say but it is really important. As well as SNAs, the primary educator of the child in the school, the person who is going to help that child or young person achieve the best outcomes, is the teacher. As well as all the work on SNAs, we have done a huge amount of work to reduce class size over the years. Three successful budgets have reduced it on average and now we are down to 22.2. The programme for Government looks to reduce it further. We have also put a huge amount of investment into resource teachers and special education teachers. As well as the classroom, which has an average of 22.2 in primary, we also have 15,000 special education teachers who come in and assist the mainstream teachers. The SNA is part of it. The new therapies that are going into schools are part of it, and the NEPS, etc.

Going back to the Deputy's question on SNAs, again, they were not cuts. We are increasing and increasing. We are just moving the resource to follow the children with most need. We failed to communicate and to prove that. We were not transparent enough in demonstrating the rationale.

Yes but Ms McNally basically thinks that the cuts should be carried out.

No, they are not cuts.

Okay; the "not cuts" should be carried out; that schools should have the reductions that came from the process.

I believe we have to meet the needs of children. If children need access to an SNA, we should ensure that they have access to an SNA. If a child's needs have changed and they are more independent; if they needed an SNA a couple of years ago but they no longer need that, I think that as a system, with Exchequer funding, we have to look and see if there is a child somewhere else who needs it more.

Yes, so that is a defence of the current process. That is fair enough; that is a current process. The logic of that is that there would not have been the U-turn that has taken place, or the partial retreat or extended pause that has taken place, but that is fine.

In terms of documentation, what does the NCSE take into account when deciding the allocation of SNAs for the next year?

I will ask my colleague Ms Mannion to come in on that. The Deputy's question is on what it takes into account in deciding-----

The NCSE is sitting down. What does it have in front of it to decide whether it is going to give them more, fewer or the same number as the previous year?

I thank the Deputy. The NCSE is starting off on the basis that each school has the profile it has, and if it has a mixture of mainstream SNAs or special classes. The special classes have two SNAs per class. When it is looking at the mainstream and goes in to look at the reviews, the NCSE is looking at a multiplicity of factors. It is looking at the school profile and the student care needs. Importantly, it is looking at the appropriate deployment of the resources across a variety of resources and practices. Over the past three years, it has carried out somewhere in the region of 3,100 reviews. It looks at all of that and then looks at the resources that are available, not just the SNAs-----

I am talking about documentation, not-----

All of the documentation that supports that.

Which is what?

A lot of this is contained in the student support plans that the individual children have.