In advance of today's meeting, we received apologies from Deputy Ryan O'Meara and Senator Joe Conway. I welcome everyone today. I ask anyone attending remotely to mute themselves when not contributing so we do not pick up any background noise or feedback. As usual, I remind all those in attendance to ensure their mobile phones are on silent mode or switched off.

Members attending remotely are reminded of the constitutional requirement that in order to participate in public meetings, they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. As the witnesses are within the confines of Leinster House, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentation they make to this committee. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure it is not abused. Therefore, if their 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.

Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or entity outside the Houses or an official of the Houses either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

On behalf of the committee, I warmly welcome from the National Parents Council, NPC, Áine Lynch, CEO; Ms. Carmel O'Shea, advocacy services manager; and Mr. Facundo Furtado, voice, influence and inclusion officer. From Save Our SNAs, we are joined by Ms Jesslyn Henry. Dr. Niall Muldoon, Ombudsman for Children, declined the invitation as he is attending an international conference. All his senior management team also had important commitments, so, regrettably, they cannot be with us.

I will now call on our witnesses to make their opening statements. We will begin with Ms O'Shea and then we will hear from Ms Henry. They will have five minutes each, and questions will then follow from the members.

Good morning. I thank the committee for the opportunity to share the views of parents on special education teachers and special needs assistants. The findings we will be discussing are based on the results of a survey conducted by the NPC in June 2026. The NPC sent the survey to all parents on its mailing list who had given their consent to receive such invitations. The survey was open from 9 to 15 June. I thank the 791 parents who took the time to participate in this survey. The high level of engagement demonstrates how important educational supports are to families and reflects parents' commitment to ensuring that all children can access the support they need to thrive in school.

The purpose of this survey was to better understand parents' experiences and views of special education teachers, SETs, and special needs assistants, SNAs.

We asked parents about the role these supports play in schools, whether current allocation models are working effectively and what training and qualifications parents believe are necessary to meet the increasingly diverse needs of children. With regard to SETs, one of the clearest findings from the survey is the value parents place on special education teachers. Parents overwhelmingly described SETs as essential in helping children access learning, build confidence, develop independence and participate fully in school life. Many parents highlighted the positive impact that SET support has had on their child's academic progress, emotional well-being and overall school experience.

Parents are very positive about the amount of SET support available to their child, with just over 63% of parents saying they are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the level of support provided. However, when asked about the allocation of SET support, parents expressed concerns. While many acknowledged that schools are doing their best within the resources available, there was a strong view that the level of support available is often insufficient to meet demand. Parents spoke about limited access to support, reduced support hours and concerns that children can struggle for long periods before receiving assistance. Many felt that support should be allocated on the basis of individual need and that current arrangements do not always reflect the reality of children's experiences in school.

The survey also explored parents' views on the training and qualifications of special education teachers. More than two thirds of respondents felt that SETs should hold additional specialist qualifications beyond their initial teaching degree. Parents also expressed strong support for ongoing professional development, particularly in areas such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, emotional regulation and inclusive education practices. Many parents felt that the increasing complexity of needs within schools requires specialist expertise and continuous learning.

These findings align closely with feedback received through the National Parents Council, NPC's, recent consultation on the review of the Céim: Standards for Initial Teacher Education. In that consultation, parents consistently identified special education and inclusive education as areas requiring greater emphasis within initial teacher education. Parents expressed concern that many newly qualified teachers are not adequately prepared to support children with additional needs and called for mandatory practical training in areas such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia and neurodiversity. Parents also highlighted the importance of ensuring that all teachers, not only those working in specialist roles, have the knowledge and confidence to support children with additional needs in mainstream classrooms. Furthermore, parents strongly supported greater placement opportunities during initial teacher education in special classes and special schools, believing that direct experience of diverse educational settings is essential in preparing teachers to meet the needs of all learners and recognising that as a newly qualified teacher, NQT, they may be working in any of these settings as a first teaching job.

Taken together, both consultations point to a clear message from parents that specialist supports such as SETs are critical, but inclusion is the responsibility of the entire education system. Parents want all teachers to graduate with a strong understanding of special educational needs and inclusive practice, while also ensuring that specialist staff have access to advanced qualifications and ongoing professional development.

The findings relating to special needs assistants, SNAs, were equally strong. Parents overwhelmingly recognised the important contribution SNAs make to children's educational experiences. They described SNAs as providing support that extends beyond care needs and includes emotional regulation, communication, social development, participation in learning and inclusion in school life. Many parents highlighted the trusting relationships that children develop with SNAs and the positive impact these relationships can have on confidence, well-being and engagement in education. Parents are very positive about the role of the SNA, with 76% saying that the role either fully meets their child’s needs or that it meets their needs but could be improved.

When considering the allocation of SNA support, parents again raised concerns. Almost half of respondents felt that the current allocation model is not fair, while many others indicated that they were unsure how the system operates. Parents frequently raised concerns about the availability of support, the sharing of SNAs between multiple children and the ability of the current model to respond to increasingly diverse needs. Many parents felt that some children would benefit from greater access to one-to-one support and expressed concern that resources are often stretched too thinly across schools. The responses also revealed a degree of confusion regarding how SNA allocation decisions are made. Some parents appeared unclear about the respective roles of schools, the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, and the allocation process itself. This suggests that alongside concerns about resources, there may also be a need for clearer communication and greater transparency around how supports are allocated and the factors that influence those decisions.

The survey also examined parents' views on the training requirements for SNAs. Parents consistently expressed support for additional specialist training and ongoing professional development. Many highlighted the need for expertise in areas such as autism, ADHD, communication difficulties, sensory processing and emotional regulation. Parents recognised that SNAs are supporting children with increasingly complex needs and felt that access to relevant training is essential if they are to continue carrying out this role effectively.

As part of this consultation, we also asked for the views of parents whose children do not currently receive SET or SNA support. The response was that these parents strongly recognised the value of these roles. They acknowledged the positive impact that SETs and SNAs have not only on individual children but also on classrooms, teachers and school communities as a whole. This reinforces the view that educational supports benefit all learners and contribute to more inclusive and effective school environments. The findings suggest that parents want to see sufficient resources to ensure children can access support when they need it, clear and transparent allocation systems that are understood by families, and ongoing investment in training and professional development for both SETs and SNAs.

Finally, the survey demonstrates that parents see special education teachers and special needs assistants as fundamental to the delivery of inclusive education. While there is strong support for the professionals working within the system, there is also a clear message that continued investment, greater clarity and enhanced training will be needed to ensure that every child can reach their full potential. Thank you, and we look forward to discussing the findings with you.

I thank the committee for inviting me along. Inclusion means belonging, a feeling of safety and security, somewhere you can be yourself, where you are not made to feel othered, not enough, weird or strange for being yourself. That is all any of us wants, to feel safe and to feel that we belong. Inclusion is not putting all children into a classroom and hoping for the best. It is not providing supports, services, therapies or even staff who do not understand a child’s needs. Inclusion is meeting every child where they are. It is focusing their education on their abilities, not their disabilities. Whether that is a special class, a special school, a mainstream classroom with SNA support or a child whose goals are learning to pack their school bag, eat their lunch independently or achieve 625 points in the leaving certificate, our education system must be able to cater for them all and treat every child with dignity and respect. We should be cheering on every milestone, whatever that may be.

Education is a human right. Safety is a fundamental psychological need. Unfortunately, however, for far too long, our system has been failing far too many children. No parent should have to take the State to court for services, a school place or even a diagnosis, yet that is exactly what is happening. This is not an inclusive environment. The right to an inclusive education is not simply an aspiration; it is recognised in national and international law. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities states that children with disabilities have the right to access an inclusive education system and to participate fully in their communities. Here in Ireland, the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act and our own Department of Education and Youth policies commit us to supporting children to learn and thrive in the least restrictive environment possible, but rights on paper mean very little if they are not matched with action in practice. True inclusion requires investment. It requires timely assessments, access to therapies, appropriate school placements and adequate resources. It requires classrooms where children are supported, understood and valued. Most important, it requires a workforce equipped with the knowledge and skills to meet increasingly diverse needs.

Teachers and special needs assistants are at the heart of inclusive education, yet many will tell you they do not receive enough specialist training. According to the 2019 ASTI Red C survey, only 22% of members surveyed said they had received special educational needs training. We cannot expect educators to support children with complex communication needs, autism, ADHD, intellectual disabilities, sensory differences, mental health challenges and behavioural needs without providing them with the tools to do so effectively. Initial teacher education and ongoing professional development must place inclusion at their centre. Teachers need practical training in differentiated learning, positive behaviour supports, communication strategies, sensory regulation and trauma-informed practice. They need confidence in adapting teaching methods so that every child can access learning in a meaningful way. The Relate framework developed by the NCSE is arguably the best guidelines issued in education but needs to be adequately funded and resourced throughout the system so that teachers and SNAs are adequately trained in regulation-first principles.

Similarly, SNAs deserve high-quality, continuing professional development that recognises the vital role they play in supporting students' care, independence, participation and well-being.

SNAs should be empowered, through training and collaboration, to work as valued members of the educational team, not simply as additional adults in the room.

Inclusion cannot depend on the goodwill of individual teachers, SNAs or parents fighting for supports. It must be embedded within the entire education system. It must be planned for, funded and prioritised. When inclusion is done well, it benefits everyone. Children learn empathy, respect and understanding. Diversity becomes something to celebrate rather than fear. Schools become communities where differences are not barriers but strengths.

Every child deserves to walk into a school knowing they are welcome, valued and safe. Every child deserves an education that recognises their potential. Every family deserves to know that their child's rights will be upheld without having to battle the system to access them. A truly inclusive society is one that ensures every child has the opportunity not just to attend school, but to belong there.

I thank Ms Henry very much. We really appreciate all of the witnesses being here this afternoon. We are going now to members' questions. There will be six minutes per member. I usually allow a little overrun of 30 seconds or so but we need to keep within the time constraints. Those present might hear me tapping against the glass every so often, which just means they should wrap up and conclude. Members have six minutes. They should give adequate time to the witnesses to respond.

I thank all the witnesses for being here and for delivering their opening statements. If I can, I will start with Ms Henry. I thank her for her statement which was impactful. I could not help but picture the children she talked about when she read it.

There was no disagreement in this room when the SNA reductions were announced. We thought it was a shame. It was very hurtful and stressful on families and school communities as a whole. It was very poorly handled. What it did was spur on a lot of the work that had been promised on the professionalisation of SNAs and the redeployment scheme. I believe the SNAs have broadly welcomed it. Could Ms Henry give me a bit of detail in that regard? What is she happy with? What is she not happy with? Where does she think the work that is being done will take us to in terms of getting to our ultimate goal of fully inclusive school environments?

It is absolutely a positive that the circular has been expanded. It looks very much like the day-to-day role of an SNA that we do on a daily basis. It is fantastic to see that the model is now moving away from primary and secondary care needs, as such, and more to core needs. It is very positive that those now include communication and regulation because they are, ultimately, what we strive to meet every single day but they were never recognised before.

In terms of the issues for SNAs, some of the workplace relations stuff is not fully there yet. The professionalisation of the role and moving to level 6 is a huge opportunity for SNAs and the children we work with and for their families to be able to trust that the people looking after their children are educated to a standard that can help.

Is there a concern among SNAs about getting to level 6? What percentage of SNAs are already at that level? Will they be helped to achieve it if they are not?

I am not fully aware of the percentage at the moment. Fórsa did a survey of members a number of years ago and it had those figures. A huge number of SNAs already have level 6. I teach SNA courses at levels 5, 6 and 7. I developed one of the level 7 courses and founded it with QQI. We see SNAs coming in all of the time anyway to reach that standard. In all fairness, as it is, it is very rare that a school would hire anybody who does not have that level of qualification. We want the best possible people in our schools looking after our most vulnerable students. SNAs are purposely going out and getting those qualifications themselves.

I thank Ms Henry. I want to ask a question of Ms O'Shea. Every teacher should have a basic or grounding education in special education and inclusion. We are asking a lot of teachers these days. They are constantly being asked to do more with the evolution of the school environment. What qualification does she think special education teachers need to do? Is it a master's or an additional module? How extensive would the training be that is needed for a SET?

I might come in there. We do ask a lot of our teachers but we have also committed to an inclusive education system. That is the base level: children should be able to get the support wherever they are in the education system. All teachers need that overall basic initial teacher education. Although that has been improved recently, we still feel it needs to be improved more. Two weeks' placement is not enough when we see the range of needs teachers are working with.

First, we need to improve our initial teacher education to make sure that all teachers can support all children in the education system. Then, in terms of additionality, what we are suggesting and what parents have told us is that if teachers are working in specialist placements like a special class or a special school, they should have additional education for that. There needs to be a review of that rather than sitting here saying it should be at master's level. There needs to be a proper exploration of that because certain teachers specialise in certain areas of provision and work in certain classes or certain schools. I think there needs to be a framework that means teachers can get the qualifications and education they need depending on the setting they are working in that requires additional training. There needs to be a real review rather than just saying we need a master's or a postgraduate or a one-year course or whatever. The length of it will come when we know what needs to be included in it because the needs of children are growing.

The other difficulty is that a lot of the specialist settings currently have very newly qualified teachers working in them, so they are sometimes coming straight from their initial teacher education and working in specialist settings and then being supported by teachers who do not have additional education in the area. We have got this very difficult situation trying to support children, sometimes with very complex needs, without the additional understanding of what those needs are and how to adapt the curriculum and everything else to it.

Is that review not ongoing at the moment?

I am not sure, but I do not think so. That is something we suggest would need to happen.

I thank the witnesses very much. The National Parents Council was referenced specifically in regard to SNAs and SETs. I have some questions about the allocation process and how it is done. Could the witnesses expand on that in terms of what parents are saying and what they would like to see if there are recommendations in that regard? Is it more about inclusion, greater involvement in the decision-making process or greater transparency in how decisions are made?

All of that. One of the issues they raise is that they do not really understand how the allocation process works and maybe how their child did not get an allocation and other children in the school did. Transparency in how those decisions are made and involving their voice is really important. One of the other things that came up through SET and SNA allocations was also the fact that some children who may not be presenting openly with difficulties are the last ones to get support, although their needs may be just as great. Children who are struggling most to regulate in a setting are requiring more support and children are often going without support if they are not presenting like that. Parents are then saying that their child has to deteriorate so much before they get support, whereas if they got early intervention support they might never have needed the level of support they needed in the end.

Certainly, parents want to be more involved in those conversations. Ultimately, the principal needs to make the decision about the allocations in the school – parents respect that – but they want to be involved in the conversations before that and to have an opportunity to talk about their child's needs as they see them, and what their child needs to support them.

Is it the same picture for SETs as it is for SNAs or is it different?

The important thing to say is the survey really showed that a lot of parents are happy with the allocation. A total of 63% said they were either completely happy or were happy but required a bit more, and it was 76% in respect of SNAs. We were quite shocked with that level of support for what children were getting.

Does Ms Lynch think that parents recognise the distinct and separate roles, and related roles, in relation to that?

When we are working with them and talking with them, not just in the survey but more generally, they would be quite aware of the type of support that their child gets in the school on most occasions, not always but on most occasions.

It is fair to say that in the wake of the SNA debacle at the Government's hands, there was a massive public response from parents, whole school communities and campaigners such as the witnesses' organisations. I am firmly of the opinion that we would not have made the type of progress that we have made without that effort. I also commend the SNAs and their representative organisations. How does Ms Henry reflect on where we are now? Where would she like all of that effort to take us? What are the key indicators that she would like to see on the back of this process? Obviously, there is an industrial relations process where there is consultation and a ballot. That is for the people involved but as a campaign group and a stakeholder in the area, what will be the key indicators of success arising out of these recent months?

The biggest success is the fact that we have the new circular and those core needs have been expanded, so that it is not just toileting, feeding and medical needs and we are actually addressing a huge array of needs with which we are working on a daily basis. The fact that the allocation model is based off that now will see a whole load of children who would not previously have had support get that support. That is an absolute win in all of this. What I would like to see is a bigger discussion around inclusive education that would have parents, teachers, SNAs and people like the committee members all sitting down together to discuss what an inclusive education system looks like, how we can push it forward and how we can address the issues surrounding therapies, diagnosis and allocation, all of those things that are so important to all of us in the school community, parents and wider families of the children we are trying to support. That would be the biggest thing we need to do to see that happen.

The last Private Members' motion on this issue in the Dáil, the Minister indicated that she would establish a forum. Does Ms Henry think this could advance these types of conversations?

I do. I think the forum will have to have representatives from across everybody because if it does not and leaves out one voice, it will be useless.

This conversation or engagement is critical. The deficits that are there need to be constantly highlighted. In more recent times, when it came to the summer programme or what was called the July provision, it was quite insulting that the portal was only open for six days. I know this was corrected but no teacher or school should have to be firefighting with an educational system to cater for the most vulnerable. In the case of one such school with which I had liaison or engagement in that regard, when the portal reopened, it applied and was successful.

I took it upon myself last Monday to visit that institution, which is St. Jarlath's College in Tuam. There were ten students who benefited from the scheme. Regardless of whether it is St. Jarlath's in Tuam or any other school around the country, it would do anyone good to see it, if they had any doubt or suspicion about the value of SNAs and SET. It was compelling to see and understand what it is that those children were doing as part of that programme, and that is not an exaggeration. They were being taught how to do CPR, first aid and everything pertaining to the basic skills of interacting with someone who has been injured, whether by a burn or otherwise.

I got to know and understand the circumstances of most of those children and the teaching staff and I came away with one clear message, namely, that the Department should never tamper with a process that does such magical things in people's lives. We were there for the best part of two hours, during which I was astonished to see the love the SNAs were given and the way they responded. The parents, who in most cases were probably at home or in part-time work, deserved a break rather than constantly worrying about who will provide an education for their child. That was the thing I came away with.

One SNA was transitioning from mainstream teaching into SEN teaching and had done her master's degree. What I found really surprising was that while she was doing her training and during her master's degree, there was no module to cater for SEN at all. I thought that was unusual. I do not want to add an extra burden to teachers who are not into that level of work but I thought it was maybe a weakness in the system that all teachers would not have an understanding of the needs of those special children. I do not know if there is any reason to believe that will be provided in the future but I thought that was a deficit.

I do not have questions for Ms Henry. I am just making a comment. Maybe she will have a comment to make when I am done. There is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that when a school applies for an SEN or the summer programme, it is not being truthful about its needs. It should not have to make an application on that basis and expect a refusal. The advice schools are given when they are refused is to appeal the decision. If there is not enough trust on the part of Department officials to allow them to take at face value what the application is asking for and run with that and if we continue to tamper with what is or should be a brilliant model in terms of inclusion, we will lose that because it will exclude the people who need the greatest assistance in life. People who do not have those disabilities or are not disadvantaged in that way will manage just fine. For the love of God, let us stop making it complicated and let us stop antagonising the teaching staff. Let us be fair about the way the process works. I was taken with the experience and I would strongly appeal to people who would not be familiar with this to go and do it because it is just remarkable.

I have to agree with the Deputy that the process has been way too difficult for schools.

I have seen a school close to where I live that has had to put a business case together so that it can have extra SNAs at its summer provision programme. That is crazy. The fact that the portal was not open for very long did not help. That was corrected, but we are going to see many children not able to participate because it was announced too late and schools were not able to get staff together to provide it. We are going to see children missing out. I agree with the Deputy on that, and it is very important to have that programme.

Absolutely.

I might make a quick comment, not about the summer programme, but more about applying for SNAs in general. I agree with the Deputy, but there is also a finite budget. Unless that changes, we as a society and Government have to make sure that the children with the most need have the support. Unless it is an open-ended budget, we have to make some decisions, and it is how we make those decisions that is important. Some of the parents in our survey were saying that because their children did not have such obvious needs, they got left until last even though they had greater needs. It comes down to how we make decisions or having an open-ended budget, which I do not think is ever going to happen. We have to be realistic, in that there is a budget for this, so we need to ensure that the allocations happen properly.

I agree with everybody here that the previous review was done too quickly and at the wrong time, with everything else going on. However, we have to have reviews because needs in our schools change. If we have children with great needs in this school but allocations have not been changed and another school does not have the same needs as it had maybe two years ago, the first group of children are then missing out.

Some of these difficult decisions and processes, if we do not have an open-ended budget, become a problem.

I will let Ms Lynch back in, but just to be fair with the clock, I am actually the next speaker. I am happy to reset the clock and let Ms Lynch continue on that point for a minute because it is a very important one. Just being fair to all the members with the time, we will reset it.

I have probably made the point, but sometimes we have these conversations where we look at what we want for children, but if a budget is set, we can only provide within that budget. Sometimes, societal and governmental decisions need to be made rather than looking at what schools did or did not get, as that is all within the budgetary process. Children with the greatest need must have the most support. That is my point.

I thank Ms Lynch for that.

First and foremost, the witnesses are all very welcome and I thank them for their input in their opening statements, which were very informative. I am sure that the witnesses have answered questions that we were all looking to ask at one stage or another.

Ms Henry's opening statement says:

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities states that children with disabilities have the right to access an inclusive education system and to participate fully in their communities. Here in Ireland, the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act and our own Department of Education and Youth policies commit us to supporting children to learn and thrive in the least restrictive environment possible ...

We can talk about budgets and the Department of public expenditure, but in this particular room, we are talking about the supports delivered for children. I wholeheartedly support what Deputy Roche said in that regard.

I was happy to hear Ms Henry mention in one of her responses that the training and communication had improved. Going back to the earlier part of this year, that was the element that was very much missing. The whole messaging broke badly, and we were all caught on the hop, based on the message getting out there. It is good to hear that communication is improving, but we want to ensure that continues to improve and that it is inclusive of all the representative bodies, SNAs and SETs, as well as the students. That is very important.

As regards the National Parents Council, I love the fact that it has once again engaged with students, parents and families. I love the fact that there is a survey and that there is actual information that can be presented. The council is not just coming with a point to prove or statement to make. It has actually done the work, and it must be complimented for that. Regarding SETs, the witnesses, who are the parents' representatives, said, "Many felt that support should be allocated on the basis of individual need and that current arrangements do not always reflect the reality of children's experiences in school." We all know there is a delay in the allocation of resources and that, sometimes, schools do not get the resources they want but they make do with what they get. Did the council ask any questions about the impact on other students in the class environments of the delayed response in the allocation of resources?

We would not have gone into talking about delayed responses, but we asked parents of children who did not have special educational needs about the importance of the SETs and SNAs in the class, and they overwhelmingly answered that they felt that those additional people working with children helped all of the children in the school, in that it impacted their children as much as it impacted the children with SEN.

When we talk about resources, it is also not always about bodies. We did the survey, but we work with parents every day in what are very difficult circumstances at times. For some, it is not about more bodies, but the experience and understanding of the people who are there. That is why we welcome the SNA review. The training element of that will raise the tide. Many parents talk about SNAs as their children's people, advocates and voices in school, so the role is very well respected.

However, when we talk about resources, we need to talk about more than just numbers of people. We need to talk about what those people have engaged with in terms of education and training and how they are supporting the children in the class. Quite often, there are bodies there, but the knowledge held by those bodies means that children are more dysregulated and struggling. The SNA communication and behavioural regulation pieces will really help with that, because SNAs are seen as crucial in that regard. Its expansion will make a huge difference.

I do not mean "bodies" disrespectfully, but we often just count the number of SNAs and SETs in the system. We need to ask what those people need to do their jobs effectively.

Yes, to support them in doing their jobs.

I have not got to the end of the survey. I started going through it and looked at the individual recommendations. Where the parents said that the allocation should be on an individual basis, did the National Parents Council make a recommendation on that point?

No. The main thing around the allocation was that parents felt it should be more transparent. Parents did not know why their child had or had not got an allocation, so they felt that they should be more included in the decisions and that their viewpoint should be taken into consideration during allocation. Much of it was around the transparency of understanding the decisions being made.

That comes back to Ms Henry's communication point. I thank Ms Lynch.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their presentations.

I want to ask Ms Henry about the recent attack on SNAs that the Government announced, leading to a huge reaction. Last week, we had witnesses in from Fórsa. I made the point that you sometimes needed a reaction to get people to act. Overall, it has led to some good developments, which I think the witness mentioned in terms of the circular as well as professional development and maybe more job security for SNAs.

I want to ask about the circular. Save our SNAs had a very strong campaign on this, and that has obviously paid dividends. Will Ms Henry tell us a little about why the group did that and about the campaign?

Basically, the circular that was in place was very closed-ended.

The circular based the allocation of SNAs within schools on physical care needs such as toileting, feeding and medical care, which left out a huge cohort of children and young people. We are now seeing many more children coming into the system, and we see it with the fight for special school places, autism classes and all of these things. There are neurodivergent children and children who would not tick the boxes of needing support with toileting, feeding or medical care. As a result we really wanted to campaign about communication and regulation. We wanted communication because we have so many children who are either pre-speaking or non-speaking, and also because when children become disregulated, they cannot speak or vocalise their fears. SNAs work with those children every single day. We thought that those children needed to be respected and given the support that they deserve.

With regulation, the Relate framework was released quite a while ago now. Any SNA or teacher working in the system will agree the Relate framework is phenomenal. However, the finances and resources are not being put into schools to train staff in how to use the framework properly. If we had a regulation-first system within schools, it would make such a difference to children across the board. Whether it is a DEIS school, a private school, an autism class or a mainstream class, that regulation-first piece would make children so much happier and better regulated within classrooms, and happier going home, which is a big piece for neurodivergent children.

Ms Henry, in her opening statement, said no parent should have to go to court to get the right to education or therapies for their children. I hear about this an awful lot from parents and I have to put parents in touch with solicitors who take cases. There seems to be a history in this country of the Government and State, no matter what Government is in place, defending and then only paying out whenever they need to. We have even seen that happen to people who suffered abuse in schools. Will Ms Henry outline her experience of people she knows having to go through that process?

A very good friend of mine had to undertake a sleep-out. We had sleep-outs last year because parents were seeking school places for their children. That is a diabolical situation for parents. Quite often parents contact me, especially now since the launch of the Save Our SNAs campaign. They are looking for support because assessments of need take years and school places have not been secured. A neighbour contacted me because she has no school place for her child for next year and the primary school has already told her there is not point in her applying. We are hearing of these cases far too often. Parents should not have to take cases to court. They definitely should not have to do sleep-outs outside the Department of education to make sure their child has a school place. It is diabolical.

The courts are also very intimidating spaces for people.

Absolutely

My last questions are for the National Parents Council. I have read its survey on the allocation of special education teachers and people's dissatisfaction with that. It is stated that parents felt that an insufficient number of SET hours available and that schools are forced to prioritise children with the most significant need. They expressed concern about the inequalities from school to school and called for increased SET allocations, greater transparency and a stronger focus on individual needs. Do the witnesses have any idea how many more special education teachers are needed throughout the system?

No, we would not have any data on that. Parents regularly tell us that their children do not just go to a specialist placement for minding and that they want them to have an education as well. Obviously that is where a SET teacher comes in. It is not just about managing behaviour and regulation; it is about access to the curriculum across mainstream and specialist placements. This issue comes up time and again, which is why it came up in the survey that parents were raising it as an issue. It is part of the education system that they really value. The problem is that a child must disimprove to get something. Early intervention may have meant that an intervention was not needed for so long. That is the issue that was raised by parents.

I have some questions. Again, I thank all of the witnesses for coming in today. The committee has been pretty well briefed over the last week on what is in line for everyone who works in special education, and SNAs in particular. Have all the organisations been adequately consulted in that process?

Yes. Fórsa has reached out to every SNA in the country. It has offered two or three information meetings a day, depending on where they are, with some online and others in person, to hear the voices of SNAs and explain the new contract and circular to SNAs. It has done that throughout the process. Over the last two years of the workforce development plan, Fórsa has regularly updated its members on what is happening. It has been a slow process. Some SNAs may feel that they were not represented in some of the forums held by the Department to hear SNA voices because only one SNA from each school could attend. Lots of SNAs, especially if it was a large special school with 40 or 50 SNAs, had to depend on only one SNA to convey all of their voices and that might have been a difficulty. Since the release of the circular and contract, Fórsa has gone above and beyond to reach out to members.

That is good to hear.

Yes, as a national body, we have been consulted all the way through. Ms O'Shea was consulted on the SNA workforce development plan. We are on a special education forum. We are a stakeholder under the Act so we are consulted on any policy or legislative change. As a national body we are very much consulted. There is a communication deficit at a local level in schools and communities. Parents do not get the voice that they need to have at a local level. That transference of being involved very much at a national level and being included does not always work its way down within schools. Some schools do amazing work in that area but parents in some schools do not have a voice, for instance in their child's student plan. It can be very variable when it gets further down from the national body.

I will use that phrase "their voice" because the voice of children has been really well heard. When the protests were on Molesworth Street, I met many parents who were advocating for their children, SNAs and teachers. The children's voices were heard.

We have all talked about children here and it seems SNAs come second. I want to ask about people going into the profession. What we heard in the briefing was that they would love to stabilise the workforce and to reach the point where people have a lifelong career as an SNA and go into a bank like anyone else and without hassle draw down a mortgage. Does Ms Henry think this will stabilise the work environment for SNAs? Will we start seeing a change in the profile of people working as SNAs?

I am a former teacher but for a short period I worked as an SNA and saw a gender imbalance. These things are not always fully addressed. Another thing I noticed was that very few people in their 20s or school leavers become an SNA and work as an SNA for life. Someone taps them on the shoulder, says they are doing very well as an SNA and asks them why they do not become a teacher. That is not what we want. We want people to choose an SNA career that is viable, pays well, is appreciated and is a job for life. Does Ms Henry feel that that will be secured here to some degree?

The fact that redeployment has now been brought in will absolutely secure an SNA workforce. We are not going to lose valuable, educated and experienced SNAs because their school loses an SNA and they have not been able to get another job. We will see that stabilised.

As for whether we going to reach the point where SNAs come straight from school, I would love to see school leavers be able to view becoming an SNA as a career opportunity and be able to study those courses in college. At the moment that is not possible. SNAs still tend to be people who are raising their families and are doing a career change.

Ms Henry's opening statement was very compelling. I agree with a huge amount of what she said. She mentioned that "SNAs should be empowered through training and collaboration to work as valued members of the educational team". It has been a bugbear. Some SNAs feel that their role is to support a child, yet they are sometimes set off tidying bookshelves or doing menial jobs that they are not supposed to be doing. Does Ms Henry think we will move to a model, somewhat like the UK, where we will see teaching assistants in classrooms who have an educational role supporting the teacher in the room, not just supporting one or two children in the room?

That is a bigger conversation to have. It is something for further down the road. Is there a place for care needs and for SNAs to be educational as well? Absolutely. A lot of SNAs help educationally anyway, whether we are supposed to or not.

Absolutely.

I would love to see a different kind of a system set up. Again, it would depend on those opportunities of education. I would love to see an apprenticeship scheme set up that we can work with teachers and SETs. Those young people who have depended on SNAs so long might end up going into the role. How much of a difference would they make to children with similar disabilities to them if they were able to share their experience and knowledge? That would be fantastic.

It would be incredible if we could get to that point. I thank Ms Henry very much. I will come in again later in a second round of questions. Next up is Deputy Callaghan.

I thank all the witnesses for being here and bringing all their very valuable experience and knowledge with them. I apologise for being late. I was at another committee meeting.

I have a number of questions. It might be best if I ask them and the witnesses will have time to come back in. The redeployment scheme for SNAs has been broadly welcomed. This is something I brought up with the Minister, Deputy Naughton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Moynihan. While an SNA's role on paper is the same in a mainstream classroom as it in a special education classroom and also in a special school, in my experience special schools, particularly the ones in my constituency in Kilkenny and Carlow, have an awful lot of long-term sub SNAs who would have been in their schools for five or six years. They are almost like permanent members of staff. While the redeployment scheme does offer great job security for SNAs, and as a former SNA I welcome it hugely, there is a space for principals to have a little bit more autonomy when there is an SNA vacancy in their schools. What are the witnesses' thoughts on that?

I already know the answer to this, but I would like to hear it from the witnesses. How important is assault leave for SNAs and teachers?

The next question is somewhere in the back of my mind and I spoke to my SNA former colleagues about it over the weekend. What difference would multidisciplinary teams bring if they were in our schools? What support would they bring for our SNAs and SETs? Even though I am speaking about SNAs and special educational teachers, we are really keeping the child at the centre of all of this. Multidisciplinary teams would have such a positive impact on our children in school and by extension in family and home life as well.

For SNAs, the new workforce plan, circular and redeployment plan is bringing a lot of professionalism to the role of the SNA. I welcome the fact SNAs are being encouraged to upskill, take training courses and do all that good stuff. What are the witnesses' feelings on the extra personal vacation, EPV, days that teachers can get if they do an approved summer course? I feel like I know what the answer is or what my former colleagues would say, but I would like to know what the witnesses think about also having those EPV days available for SNAs who do a summer course.

What advice or support might the witnesses give to a parent who is seeking a special school placement for their child? There is one person that I am thinking of specifically. Her child is already in a special education classroom in a mainstream school. It is insufficient for his needs. He is probably only doing one hour a day now. The parent is not fussy at all about where she goes. She will travel just to get the proper education for her child. The advice that came down from the NCSE and SENO, however, was to consider homeschooling. What supports could we get there?

I have probably mixed up these questions and they are probably not in order but I will do my best. EPV days would be fantastic. We would see all SNAs signing up. I cannot imagine anybody would not sign up over the summer months if they knew they were going to get EPV days. It is also about fairness. We are all working with the same children in the same circumstances in the same building. Those kinds of rights should be across the board. Only about a year ago, SNAs were granted the same rights to represent their country in a sporting event, whereas teachers already had that. At the moment, SNAs are not given leave if they are a councillor on a county or city council, whereas teachers can take that leave. If things like that, including EPV days, were brought in, that would absolutely level the playing field. It would be a less of an us and them situation among staff.

Regarding assault leave, I was in here when the assault leave Bill was being introduced in the Seanad. It will come to Second Stage soon. It would be a game-changer. It is absolutely essential. We have had so many cases. I have been assaulted, although I do not like to use the term "assault". There is assault in schools. However, while what is experienced by SNAs is assault in legal terms, it is actually dysregulation by those students. That is important to recognise. It absolutely needs to be looked at. That Bill, which went through the Seanad and will be coming to Second Stage, is important. I would love to see it passed. So much work went into it.

Multidisciplinary teams could be a game changer. So many children are not accessing therapies and supports at the moment, whether that is speech and language, physiotherapy or occupational therapy. If we had those in our schools, those children would have the supports they absolutely need. It would mean they would be able to grow into fantastic young men and women who can live their lives in any way that they see fit.

I thank Ms Henry.

I asked too many questions. We might get to the rest of them in the second round.

We can come back to them in the second record.

Regarding the Deputy's last questions, if she wants to put them in touch with the National Parents Council, we can support that parent.

I thank Ms Lynch. That is so helpful.

The witnesses are all very welcome, particularly my colleague Councillor Henry. It is great to have them here and to hear about all the work everyone is doing on this issue. What I am hearing from everybody today is that there is so much yet to be done to make sure that we have inclusive education as opposed to just having special education, which is language we need to leave in the past.

I am particularly interested in two issues. The first is early intervention classes. I had a meeting with a number of parents and schools recently where they told me that their early intervention classes in schools are being closed to make room for special classes within the schools. I am concerned about that. A bit like the SNA cuts that there were going to happen earlier in the year, we do not have the system fully in place yet. Cutting things before we have everything ready like the workforce development plan, the circular and all those things is moving a step ahead. The cutting of these early intervention classes is a mistake. Where are those children going to go? How are they are going to be school ready? How are they going to be life ready? That is part of the process.

My understanding from the people who work there is that this means a child has a better chance of succeeding in school and of being ready when they come into the formal part of the school. What is the view of the witnesses on early intervention classes being closed?

With regard to the summer programme debacle, we are limping from one disaster to another in inclusive education this year. Something has gone wrong with summer provision at every turn this year. It was like it was the first time it was run when we had to learn from our mistakes, but it has been running for decades now. I cannot understand how it has gone so drastically wrong this year. Leaving it so late in the year for the portal to be opened for people to register was a huge mistake. There is also a huge increase in numbers, but that was known. With the portal closing on 1 October, it was known how many children were going to be in the system. I do not understand what is happening. One side is not talking to the other. What is the view of the witnesses of the bigger picture as to why things went wrong?

It is an awful scenario. Which child do you pick? Do you pick the child who needs a special class in circumstances where there are no special classes or the child who needs early intervention? You want to pick both. We need to look our early years sector. If we are talking about inclusion, those children should be supported and catered for in the early years sector. Our early years sector is not even at the level of inclusion that there is in primary education. There are different parameters of control over that sector because we have quite a private early years sector. That creates problems. We know because we cover early years, primary and post-primary. Parents with children in early years who have disabilities call our helpline when they have not been able to find places for them. There is no reassurance, as is the case at primary level, that if there is a space, a particular child is entitled to it. That is not the case in the early years sector. If we are trying to build an inclusive system, we need to address that in our early years sector. All of these children should be with their peers, grow up and be educated with their peers, namely the children they live near and who they become friends with and develop with. If we are talking about inclusion as opposed to SEN, that offers possibilities for these children to be educated within their communities with their peers. Therefore, those children should have provision within the early years sector. The point of view of the National Parents Council is that all children should be included as opposed certain ones being excluded. That is important.

On the summer programme, we were very concerned at the lateness. A good thing is that schools are very prepared. They do a lot of preparation for summer provision. They know it is coming, so, thankfully, because schools work like that, a lot were ready straight away for the reopening. We should not find ourselves in that position, however. As the Deputy said, we know these things are coming down the track. The increased number of children who need specialist placements needs to be reviewed to a significant degree. The increase in numbers in recent years is beyond any previous increases. Those children are probably Covid babies. At that time, they did not have public health nursing, they perhaps missed developmental assessments and were in homes without other children and with parents working online. We need to see how that impacted on these children. We need to discover if they have special educational needs or if they need interventions in respect of developmental delays. We need to work out the appropriate interventions for these children and make sure that if an intervention is required in respect of a developmental need, there will be a targeted intervention for a specific period. The children can work through that rather than putting them into a system that is developed around SNAs and SETs who would not necessarily have the expertise those children need. It is a bit of a left-field way of answering the question, but those are some of the things that need to be looked at.

Early intervention classes closing is awful. There are a number of schools in my area that have early start or early years classes which are starting to close. Three primary schools near me have all closed them for September. Those children will not have an early years place to go to. It is because of the lack of space for an autism class. We need to look at disability and neurodiversity across the board and what we can do. An inclusive education system should not just be based on one particular cohort; we need to look across the board and see what we can do.

I apologise for not being hear earlier. I had to speak in the Seanad, but I read the opening statement. I apologise also if I ask a question that has already been asked. The unions that represent teachers and SNAs were before the committee last week. A lot of what they said about basic training, continuous professional development and specialised training has also been said by the witnesses. They want recognition of that qualification as well. In all of the NPC's interactions and surveys, was there much discussion about the principals of a school? Some schools are excellent at inclusion and there is a whole-team approach with every member of staff if the principal leads that. There are other schools where there seems to be a lack of understanding, where students are often put on a half day and told that they need to go home. They cannot cope, and no effort is made to cope. Is more education about inclusion needed for principals? Did the NPC find that or do its representatives have an opinion on the matter?

Parents did mention it in the survey around the culture in the school and their involvement as a parent in decision-making and being heard in terms of the needs of their child. It came up as part of the issue that there was a lack of transparency in decisions. We work all the time with parents of children with special educational needs and the issue around leadership in the school - it is often not just the principal, it is a leadership team. One sees differences when there might be a change in principal and the whole culture in the school has changed either positively or negatively. It is clearly a significant issue. There is a lot that is having an impact on leadership in schools. Inclusion is one thing, but there are many others. I would absolutely support education provision for leadership around inclusion. I think there already is but there needs to be more. It is interesting with the new SNA piece that training will be mandatory for SNAs. That will mean the SNA is the only person in the school for whom education is mandatory. CPD is now mandatory for SNAs. Nobody else in the school has mandatory CPD. There are arguments for and against mandatory CPD and what that brings, but that is a discussion that should be had in light of the additional needs that arise in schools. I do not mean children's needs; I am referring to general needs within school settings and leadership roles.

I really feel there is a need for training and possibly mandatory training. I was a teacher for years. There was a SENCO in the school and CPD for all staff. The staff were excellent, really engaged and wanted to know as much as possible in order that they could help students. There were also staff who did not want to know and who only wanted an easy life. They wanted A students and did not want any issues of any sort. I am not even talking about additional learning needs here. They just did not want any behavioural issues or any issues at all, so mandatory training is important. A part of people's teacher training will now have to be done in special school settings or special class settings, which is welcome. I hope that will open people's eyes to what is actually required.

The INTO suggested having a SET in every mainstream class and reducing class sizes. All of the teacher unions are calling for a reduction in class sizes, which we support. They said in other jurisdictions there is an SET in the mainstream classes.

They are team-teaching, basically, and picking up on all of these. They do not have special classes as such, or not as many anyway, and there could still be withdrawal for additional support and resource. What would their opinion of that be? Would there be a lack of confidence in that method?

I have often shared a classroom with a SET and a mainstream teacher, and it works very well. I do not know whether it would work in every classroom. It would depend on the needs.

If we are talking about an inclusive system, we will absolutely still need special classes. Maybe that would reduce the numbers. It would come down to the needs of the children in the school and in those particular classrooms. Any help that is given or any extra supports in schools for our children, whether it is those with educational needs or those who are struggling with what is happening at home, the mental health or whatever, will be beneficial. That is definitely something I would not object to.

As well, though, we need to decide what a SET is, what are the additional qualifications, whether additional qualifications are required or is it what the Deputy is talking about, namely a co-teaching team. There is a piece in that regard. If we are saying it is a SET, we need to look at what would be required. Many SETs have additional qualifications but there are also those who do not and who do not have experience either. We need to have that discussion as well.

On the early intervention, early years and the closure of those vital supports, it was stated that it is due to lack of space. Is that the main reason the witnesses are hearing for that?

A lot of those settings are closing because the schools involved need the space. Schools will be allocated an autism class or a special class, but they are not being given the funding for a modular classroom. The best way to deal with it is to say that they are sorry but that the early years provision seeing has to go, which is not fair.

I thank everyone for coming in and for their presentations. There has been some back and forth in respect of the level of qualifications that the witnesses would make mandatory when it comes to SETs. If you want to be a guidance counsellor, you have to do a postgraduate diploma or a master's degree. There is a bit of a debate about that, but my view would be that the role of a SET is equally as impactful, if not more impactful, on the children they are dealing with in intimate settings where there is a maximum of four to six children per class. On that basis alone, should a skill set equal to the master's level that is required for guidance counsellors be required?

We go back too much sometimes to our acceptance of the need to hire people with qualifications and to increase qualifications. Lots of our teachers, SNAs and people across the board have learnt on placement working through the sector and have found the best ways to move forward. I do not necessarily feel that it should be a master's qualification, but we need to look at other ways of getting people into the system who have the qualifications needed or, even more so, who have the experience needed to work with our vulnerable cohorts.

It is touching on the practicality of it, and Ms Henry touched on that as well. Also, there is the understanding of behaviour that does not come from just experiencing it, but comes from a theoretical framework and background. That is needed as well.

I am not an expert in terms of deciding whether it should be master's, another postgraduate qualification or whatever. From what we hear from parents, maybe a modular approach would be more appropriate. What you are doing then is you are making sure that the SET working in their particular environment is experienced and qualified to work in that environment. We do not want something that completely backlogs the system that we cannot get people going into SET because the qualifications are so high that they do not want to go back and do a master's, and yet they are happy to work in the area. We have to balance things. That is not to say that is a reason not to increase qualifications. It is how we do that which has the greatest impact on the children, not just saying it is a master's course. Maybe a modular system whereby people can get credits and build them would allow both that increased knowledge and experience at the same time.

We also do not want to rule anybody out for socioeconomic, religious or nationality reasons. At the moment, such people could be left out because they would say that if they have to do a master's, they would need a certain amount of money and do not have it.

That is a fair point.

We need to look at that too.

I understand that. I was a bit worried earlier to hear that in some cases students are still coming out of initial teacher education courses without doing a module in inclusive education. I was a secondary teacher. I did it. It was fairly light touch in the context of the two years of the B.Ed. I did. It was a one module - a single semester - on course that I did, with one lecture a week. I do not know if that fully equipped me to walk into a classroom and be all-inclusive when it came to children's needs. Is it time to make sure that it is mandatory on every initial teacher education course and to mandate the higher education colleges to make sure that it is on their curriculum?

Sometimes an NQT coming into a school with limited life experience is not always the best person to put in a special education classroom environment, and sometimes the more experienced teachers are put in. That is fair, but they are definitely the teachers who do not have the necessary theoretical background. Is it time to make CPD mandatory for teachers and SNAs and to make initial teacher education mandatory as well?

If you are going to make CPD mandatory for SNAs, it should be mandatory across the board. SNAs will be there for inclusion or whatever, but the teacher is ultimately the one is running the classroom and the principal is the one running the school. It comes from a top-down approach. It never comes from the bottom up. We need to look at that. Absolutely, CPD is much needed.

In terms of initial teacher education, it may have been the time that that person did their training because it now is a requirement of the Teaching Council that teaching education has a mandatory special education module and placement.

Are there no teachers coming out of the colleges now who not at least have had some exposure to it?

Some exposure, yes. The question is what exposure. Someone may have done how inclusion works in a mainstream class, which is really important too. That person may then come straight out of college and go into a special school in circumstances where they have never gone inside the door of a special school previously. The first time they do that, they have to teach a class. That can be traumatic for the teacher, but it also can have a very negative impact on the children. We are seeing that increasingly. The NQTs are going into special schools with very little experience or exposure to that teaching. It is an issue.

Even in the mainstream classroom setting, the amount of damage that a teacher can do if they are not equipped with the skill set to cater for the needs of children in the classroom or if they go into a classroom and do the wrong thing purely through a lack of training can be so damaging. We need to be so careful to make sure that it is mandated as a CPD element for every teacher across the country. I look forward to working with our witnesses on that as we go forward and I thank them for their contributions today.

Before we have our second round of questions of three minutes per member, the question of the extent to which teachers are prepared leaving the training colleges has come up on many occasions. I propose that we invite, maybe in September, the teacher training colleagues in here to talk about teacher training, CPD and how they prepare undergraduates and those on postgraduate courses for this work environment. If we agree to that, it will give the secretariat scope to start preparing for September. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The HEA and the Teaching Council are two bodies that definitely need to be brought in. On bringing in individual teacher training colleges, this is probably a one-size-fits-all approach that we are trying to bring in whereby we have standardised training across the board.

We could combine it. Would there be agreement that we combine the HEA and the teacher training colleges? It has been a reoccurring theme. I have many members raise this. There is merit to inviting them to appear in September if there is agreement to do so.

The standards need to be raised. It is important that they are dealt with as well.

Is that agreed? Agreed. We can move on to the second round of contributions.

This is an important discussion to have about inclusive education going forward because more and more children are presenting with different issues. Covid had an impact and the lack of interventions in communities is having a huge impact as well. I hear from schools that years ago had support from early childhood development teams whereas that is not there anymore and they are not getting any support. Have witnesses had any experience of the therapies being offered in schools? How is that working? Is it making a huge difference?

Sometimes that piece comes down to leadership. Some schools work very closely with their CDNT teams and others do not have a CDNT team with many people in it. It can be down to the sense of how much partnership schools open up to in terms of how they work with parents, therapeutic services out in the community or within. The therapies in schools is being rolled out in September but there are some schools that have already had it. It will be interesting to see. One of the difficulties is how we are coming from the same pool of therapists, so it will be interesting to see how that works out. The Department and the Department of Health are working closely on that but once the recruitment starts, we will see how that plays out.

CDNT teams are already struggling to get therapists for their teams and now education teams will be setting up as well. We 120% support the therapies in school because that is where children are all day so the services should be where they are and we should bring children out of school to get them. Making sure the professionals working with the children in the school setting are hearing what the therapists are saying will hopefully help. It will be important to make sure parents are included in that as well, in terms of planning, student support plans and the rest, and that there is parent involvement in that and students, where possible, too.

The CDNT in Cavan is poorly staffed. We are missing about one third of the staff so a lot of the children are not getting any intervention and there is no support going into the schools. I recall teaching some years ago, when students were transitioning from primary to secondary school the child development team would be in contact, they would tell the teacher who was coming to their school, what their needs were and suggest simple things like a colour-coded timetable or a locker at eye level. These are small, simple things that made a huge difference to give the teacher some background on the children, which helped the children settle into schools and that is missing now.

We are seeing SMAs in secondary schools trying to fill in that gap. Over the past number of years during June we would go to the primary schools, talk to the SNAs and teachers, observe the child coming over to us and find out what works for them. Again, it is the SNA trying to fill that gap to help with those transitions. It is really important the therapists are in schools to assist.

I am up next. I directed all my questions to Ms Henry in the first round. I will now go to the National Parents' Council. In its opening statement it was mentioned there was a large degree of confusion among parents around how SNA allocations are made. I agree with that. Who can blame the parents? They have enough battles on the horizon trying to support their child and the terms for how SNAs are allocated seem to change by the year anyway. Could Ms Lynch elaborate a little on that? Can she suggest what kind of communication there could be? Is there something lacking in terms of circulars and information from the Department or is it at grassroots school level that this could be improved?

A lot of it is at grassroots school level. As members can see from the opening statement, a lot of parents are happy with their allocation of both SETs and SNAs. It is the parents who were not happy who have reported this. Often, where parents are happy is when they are working in partnership with the school and where there are conversations about their children's needs. Some children may not have an SNA and the school may be very clear that is not the provision they need and that they need something different, but because the parent does not know that and has not had that conversation, they think their child does not have an SNA and that there is something they have not got that they need. That partnership makes a huge difference. If there is an explanation about what their children's needs are in the school setting, the school is listening to their knowledge of their own child and what makes a difference, and there is a plan in place that both parents, schools and children, when they can be involved, understand and agree on, those parents are less likely to be unhappy or to not understand the allocation process. They are not happy when they do not even see their student support file.

With children who have the support of an SNA at school, there is a tendency to wean them off as they come up through fifth and sixth class and very often they are not sanctioned for an SNA post at second level. Is that correct? Are we trying to stick rigidly to something that may not meet the needs of the child as they go through adolescence?

Every child is different and we may need to personalise that more. Equally, we have parents saying they do not want their child going with it and the child does not want it. They do not want the provision going with them because they are going to secondary school and want to be independent. However, we also have parents who say it was a blanket decision and nobody looked at the needs of their child. We need to be individualised about those decisions.

I thank Ms Lynch.

When we are talking about inclusive education, what are the witnesses' opinions on incorporating biodiversity education? I recently attended an interesting seminar about having nature more present in schools. I put forward the suggestion that we have lots of sensory rooms and beautiful sensory rooms that are really needed. Nature can be such a sensory experience. When we get our children in the garden, there is less difference. I understand for some they might not like the sense of touch but they might like the wind in their face, being outside and all of that sort of stuff. What do witnesses think of that idea?

Schools do a huge amount of work in this area. We have an innovation award every year that schools can apply for and for the past two years, school sensory gardens have been part of the winners of the awards. It is not only that schools are valuing it; we are valuing it when we see it. A lot of schools are building sensory gardens as well as rooms in their schools, and not only in special schools; mainstream schools are also doing it. It seems to be something that is gathering a lot of support in schools. It is a really nice way for the parents' association to work with the school and brings that partnership into it.

There is a growing acceptance of the fact that even the smells that might be in a garden can upset some children but also calm other children so there are obviously different areas needed. With nature generally, we are starting to see forest schools come into Ireland but they are very mainstream in other jurisdictions. That whole understanding of our environment and the part it plays in regulation for all children is really important.

It is important for children and adults. We are of nature so nature is soothing.

I saw an example of exactly that in a school I was at in Wexford a few weeks ago, where it was the children who initially said they wanted to be outside more and that they were not outside enough. The school authorities have a plan to change around their playground and a plan that has grown legs and wings with lots of plants in the meantime, and polytunnels and all kinds of things. We showed that idea to another school where they were looking at inclusion and where they have a number of special classes. They could all see how this could be such a fantastic example of inclusion where the children from the special class would be right beside the children from the mainstream.

They were talking about a sandpit as a first step for that, digging down, having it low so it is safe for everybody and it is all about, not plastic toys, but everything that is nature and there. They could all play together in the sandpit with such amazing learning going on for everybody. It is a really popular idea and hopefully one that will grow.

We will probably need the Department to help support in that regard and plan for green spaces, particularly when we are building new schools.

Space is an issue but planning and partnership are the way to do it, with the children having the idea, parents getting involved and people from the local community getting involved alongside the teachers and SNAs and everybody in the school.

I think I want to go back to school.

We would be big believers in that in my most recent school. I have worked in a secondary school for the past ten years. We have chickens, dogs and bees. We go out every February and work with other organisations within the community to plant trees and flowers and paint murals. It is beneficial to everybody.

It sounds absolutely fabulous; well done.

I am sorry. I had to step out for questions with the Taoiseach and missed some of the meeting. I will look back at it. Is the National Parents Council hearing from parents about reductions in allocations of special education teachers related to larger classrooms or classrooms merging? I also want to ask about the summer programme. On the SNAs and what we are hearing from Government, there is a pause there which might strike us as a potentially positive opportunity. However, what I am hearing on SET allocation and mainstream allocation, particularly the summer programme, is exactly the opposite. I do not know if that has been reflected or if the National Parents Council is hearing any of that.

Our experience recently with the summer programme has been very positive. We have been involved with the Department and other stakeholders in trying to promote the summer programme. It has grown quite significantly over the last number of years. Sometimes the difficulty with the summer programme is that the children who need it the most often are not getting it. In special schools where there are children with very complex needs, there needs to be additionality in the summer because the teachers and staff who have been working there need support.

Is it a victim of its own success? It has got very popular, there is huge demand for it but it has changed from what it was initially intended for. Is there a need for expanding or reviewing it, or both?

I think it has changed because of the needs people have raised with it. The Department has adapted it to work with those needs. The fact that it even changed from July provision to a summer programme was in response to parents saying it needs to be longer, at different times of the year and so on. It gave that flexibility to it. The fact that it has been extended to include other children as well and is not just for children with special educational needs again is from parents saying their child needs this too. It is a good time to review it, invest more in it and see it as an essential for some children who really do fall between the cracks over such a long summer period away from education. Teachers and parents will say that children had been doing so well but, with the big, long gap of not learning, when they come back in September they have regressed so much. For some children, being in groups of children all of a sudden becomes a problem again behaviourally, because they have been at home just with a brother or sister on their own. For others it is that they have just regressed so much educationally from where they were when they left the school. It is time for a review of it and an investment in it.

I am thinking also about home-based tuition, securing teaching support and SNA support, that type of thing.

We are in a position at the moment where we are trying to increase the in-school provision. Some children who need it the most are not being included in that, for the reasons I have suggested. That is still a necessary bridge at the moment. The goal must be for children to be with their peers during the summer. If a child does not have a special educational need or a disability, he or she is generally out playing with friends. The goal is to provide that for children. As long as we have not got there yet for all children, there has to be a bridge.

What I have heard over the last little while is that it needs to be child-centred and learner-centred. If you have met one child with an additional need, you have met one child. This is not a blanket thing where everybody is the same. Unfortunately, I think our education system sees systems and not individuals. I know we are saying we want it to be child-centred, but what is the reality for young people and for children in schools? Is the education they are getting child-centred or are we just trying to tick loads of boxes at the same time and hoping they fit into one of them? How far do the parents and SNAs think we are from being really child-centred when it comes to inclusive education?

The curriculum itself is not child-centred because we do not have the voices of children and young people feeding into it. At every stage, we need to be hearing the voices of our children and young people as best we can. In terms of school environments, they are definitely becoming more child-centred. All we have to look at are the bí cineálta programmes. They are based on the student voice, which is becoming much stronger in our schools. In terms of environment, yes, but in terms of curriculum, not so much and more work needs to be done on that.

There have been some efforts recently on the curriculum and young people's voices. We do have somebody from the ISSU on the NCCA now, which is a huge change from the strategy body. When the NCCA is developing curriculum, it has network schools where it speaks to parents, school staff and students. There have been improvements in recent years, but you can never have enough student engagement in curriculum development and we always need more. A lot of changes have been made that have made us more student-focused and child-focused. However, until we get proper implementation of things, we will never work towards that fully. For instance, there have been two recent inspector's reports. One was on admissions in schools and how they did not comply with the legislation. That was reviewed a year later and still schools did not comply with the legislation around their admissions policies. There are not many of them, but some schools have policies that are blocking certain children coming into them. That is going to have an impact on how child-focused our system is. The other report was on student support plans, which are seen as essential to supporting young people. Again, the inspector's report showed that there was a lot of work to do on student support plans. These are the kind of things, especially the student support plan, if we are involving school staff, parents and students, where appropriate, to develop those student support plans, where we get real child focus. The policies up here will get those systems in place, but until they are implemented fully, we will not truly have a child-focused system. Implementation is just as important as the policy and legislative development.

That concludes our questions. Before we wrap up, we agreed a short while ago that we would invite the training colleges and the HEA here to talk about all this and how teachers in particular are prepared. If we agree it now, it gives our secretariat a bit more scope to organise this and have it in place. I suggest we do that in September and that the agenda item would be as follows: inclusive education, and education and training requirements of SETs and SNAs. We want to examine how the training and education set-up is for those entering as SETs and SNAs. We would have it in September. Is that agreed by everyone?

I think it needs to be not just teachers who are going into SET but teachers who are going in-----

Teachers, full stop.

Yes. Particularly at second level, subject teachers, no matter what subject they are teaching, need to have an understanding of additional needs and how they affect how they teach.

I agree. You generally train up as a general teacher and it could be a case that it comes up in your classroom every day or that you are assigned into a role in your second or third year. I fully agree. Is that agreed, for September? It would be to have an agenda item on inclusive education, education and training requirements at initial teacher education and looking at continuing professional development, CPD.

Before we conclude, I was in a supermarket at the weekend and, as I came in the door they had all the "Thank you, teacher" cards and the little gifts, but for the first time ever, I saw a card that said "Thank you, SNA", which was nice. These are things you overlook. Whoever is making these cards or stocking the supermarkets, it is nice. It is one of those things you do not think about until you see it but the cards were right there as I came in the door. Finally, we can see SNAs are being thanked as well. It is to be hoped, with everything we have been discussing today, the new circular and the workforce development plan, that we are getting to a better place for those who work in special education, parents who have children there and, most of all, the children who need and deserve this support.

It was very stirring to see the people out in numbers a few months ago holding up placards on Molesworth Street, particularly the children. All of us here were down on the street to meet those children and their parents to hear their voices.

Again, on behalf of the committee, I thank each and every one of our guests. I also thank the SNAs and parents that our guests have represented in coming here today. I thank them for their input. The testimonies have been very insightful and inform the work of our committee. As always, I thank the secretariat and technical team for making the meeting possible.