In advance of today's meeting, we received apologies from Deputy O'Meara. Everyone is very welcome here this afternoon. I ask anyone attending remotely to mute themselves when not contributing in order that 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 entirely.

Members attending remotely are reminded of the constitutional requirements that in order to participate in public meetings, they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. Witnesses within the confines of Leinster House are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to this committee. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they may say at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege, and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if witness statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative they comply with any such direction.

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

On today's agenda is inclusive education, allocation of roles and training needs for special education teachers, SETs, and special needs assistants, SNAs. On behalf of the committee, I warmly welcome the following witnesses who have joined us here today: Dr. Robert Webster, senior research fellow, University of Greenwich who is joining us online; Professor Joseph Travers, director of the centre for inclusive pedagogy within the school of inclusive and special education, ISC, at St. Patrick's College, DCU; and Dr. Claire Griffin, educational psychologist and lecturer in educational and developmental psychology, Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick. Dr. Juho Honkasilta, university lecturer, faculty of education, University of Helsinki, Finland, has sent his apologies. He cannot attend today as he is a panellist at an international conference.

I now call on the witnesses to make their opening statements with Dr. Webster first and then followed by Professor Travers and Dr. Griffin. They will have five minutes each and following those statements we will have questions from members of the committee.

Good afternoon everybody. I thank the committee for the invitation to participate this afternoon.

I have worked for over 20 years on the deployment, preparation and impact of teaching assistants and equivalent roles. I want to draw on recent work Dr. Griffin and I have been conducting with colleagues in the international teaching assistants research network. This work compares teaching assistants, paraprofessionals and equivalent roles across five education systems, namely, Ireland, England, the USA, Germany and Shanghai, and there are two points I want to make.

First, in many education systems, teaching assistants, SNAs and their equivalents are the mortar in the brickwork of schools. They are critical to the everyday functioning of inclusive education. This is certainly the case in England, where I am based, where TAs make up a third of the school workforce. The second point is that despite their clear value, TAs are too often undervalued and their effectiveness is undermined by a process we describe as "gap filling". By this, I mean TAs are often used to plug gaps in teacher capacity, specialist knowledge, therapeutic support and clearly allocated responsibilities.

Across the systems we looked at, paraprofessional roles were designed around bounded support functions, namely, care, access, supervision, behaviour support or assistance to individual students. However, we observed that these roles frequently expanded into pedagogical, emotional, behavioural, family-facing and specialist or specialist-adjacent work. A consistent finding was that there is a gap between formal policy and everyday school practice.

Put simply, policy intentions can break down in the face of daily necessity. A pupil may need support now, a teacher has limited time and a specialist is not available.

A family needs a trusted point of contact. A behaviour, communication or emotional need has to be managed in the moment. It is often the case in England that a class needs an adult in front of them when there is not a teacher around. The nearest and most consistent adult to fill those gaps is often a TA or SNA. There are two examples to help illustrate this. The first is from Ireland where the SNA role is formally defined as a care support role, not a teaching or therapeutic role, and teachers retain responsibility for teaching and learning. Yet, recent evidence shows that SNAs are often recognised by school leaders, teachers and students as providing emotional support, advocacy, well-being support and, in some cases, learning-related assistance. We have identified a similar pattern in Germany in our research where student assistants are formally positioned around care and access but, in practice, they drift into prescribed areas. The second example is from England where TAs are increasingly being deployed to cover classes in place of teachers. Evidence from large-scale surveys that I have led show that shortages in teacher supply and availability lead some school leaders to divert TAs from their usual work and redeploy them to cover classes and lead lessons.

Schools in England may use TAs to cover short-notice or time-limited absences, but they are not supposed to use them to plug gaps in teacher capacity. However, evidence from successive surveys involving 5,000 to 6,000 TAs suggests that this is happening quite routinely. To be clear, this is not evidence that TAs or SNAs are doing something wrong. Rather, it shows how schools manage unmet need and workforce shortages pragmatically, often in very challenging circumstances. In England, the pressure is strongly related to teacher supply. In Germany and Ireland, the issue is less direct teacher substitution and more about the expansion of care and access roles into emotional, pedagogical and specialist areas of support. In our work, we describe this as absorbed work. That is work that falls to TAs because it needs to be done and no other role or member of staff has enough time capacity or is clearly responsible for doing it consistently. This work is often essential, but it is poorly recognised because it sits between formal categories. It is not quite teaching, care, therapy or behaviour support, but it often draws on elements of some or all of these.

Research on TAs often returns to role clarity and training. They both matter, but they do not by themselves change the underlying pressures that lead to role expansion. Role clarification and training should be there to support TAs and SNAs to do clearly defined work well. They should not become a way of legitimising an unchecked expansion of their role. The value of TAs and SNAs is not in doubt. The question our work raises is whether some of the lowest paid staff in the education workforce should shoulder such considerable responsibility without corresponding recognition, training supervision, pay or career progression. The policy implication is that the TA-SNA role should not be viewed or reviewed in isolation. It needs to be considered alongside teacher capacity, specialist teacher capacity and access to wider and alternative specialist supports and structures that are required to make inclusive education sustainable, equitable and accountable.

I thank the committee very much for the invitation.

As part of the SNA workforce development plan, the Department commissioned the DCU centre for inclusive pedagogy to carry out an independent scoping review of the role of special needs assistants and paraprofessionals internationally. I was the principal investigator for the project. The research questions focused on what the literature says about the SNA and paraprofessional role in supporting learning; which support models show positive effects on student learning; whether Irish practice matches policy on fostering independence; and how SNAs help children access a broader education through social, transition and life skills support. The review is organised into six sections using the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework. It begins with an additional review of existing reviews to map the evidence base, then addresses the four research questions, discusses the findings with all relevant Irish research on special needs assistants included, and ends with a framework recommended for the Irish context. The framework principles are informed from the evidence gathered. However, as the evidence was mixed in terms of policies and practices, we included a section in the recommended framework for deployment around potential challenges if the principles were not implemented, again informed by the literature. This framework outlines the key principles underpinning the effective deployment of special needs assistants within an inclusive, rights-based education system.

A clear and shared understanding of the SNA role is fundamental. SNAs operate under the supervision of the principal and teacher, contributing as part of a collaborative team that includes general and special education teachers and therapists. Their primary function is to provide supplemental, teacher-directed support, particularly in care and non-instructional tasks, thereby enabling teachers to focus on teaching and learning. The role should be flexible, encompassing support at class, teacher and individual student levels to promote inclusive practices. However, SNAs are not responsible for teaching new concepts or taking primary responsibility for students with complex needs. These responsibilities remain with qualified teaching professionals. Where this clarity is absent, significant challenges arise. Students with complex needs may be taught by inappropriately qualified staff, SNAs may make pedagogical decisions without oversight and ambiguity can lead to inconsistent and ineffective practice. The SNA role should be recognised as an integral part of a collaborative school team, with opportunities for career progression and professional recognition. When this does not occur, SNAs may experience isolation, lack of respect and frustration, particularly when expected to perform teaching duties without appropriate training or supervision. Similarly, they may feel undervalued or excluded from decision-making processes.

SNAs should not be viewed as the primary mechanism for delivering inclusive education. Instead, schools should adopt a broader approach that includes additional teaching resources, co-teaching models, therapeutic supports and peer collaboration. Teachers retain responsibility for curriculum differentiation, planning and instruction. Support for learning must always be designed and overseen by the teacher. SNAs contribute by reinforcing learning through evidence-informed strategies, such as visual supports, modelling communication and structured prompting. Support should focus on practice, maintenance and generalisation of skills within natural learning environments, encompassing academic, social, emotional, behavioural and life skills development. A central goal of SNA support is to foster student independence across cognitive, social, emotional, behavioural and physical domains. SNAs should encourage students to take ownership of their learning and gradually reduce support through effective scaffolding and prompt fading. Failure to prioritise independence can result in over-dependence, learned helplessness and reduced peer interaction.

A comprehensive, differentiated programme of education and professional learning is required for SNAs, reflecting diverse roles, contexts and student needs. Professional learning should be ongoing, school based and aligned with identified priorities. Joint professional learning opportunities for teachers and SNAs are essential to ensure shared understanding and consistency. Effective collaboration between teachers and SNAs is essential. This includes structured planning time, ongoing communication and shared responsibility for student outcomes. Leadership plays a key role with principals and designated staff responsible for mentoring, coaching and supervising SNAs through a structured pyramidal model. Where collaboration is weak, teachers may feel unprepared and shift responsibility to SNAs, while SNAs may lack direction and support. SNA deployment should be clearly linked to individualised student planning, particularly identified care needs, and should adapt to students' changing needs over time. SNAs should be involved in planning processes and the student voice must be central, including for those with communication differences.

The effective deployment of SNAs depends on clarity of role, strong collaboration, ongoing professional learning and a consistent focus on student independence and inclusion. When these principles are implemented, SNAs play a vital role in supporting equitable, high-equality education. When they are not, both student outcomes and staff well-being are compromised.

Táim fíor-bhuíoch bheith anseo inniu chun oideachas cuimsitheach a phlé. I come before the committee as an educational psychologist, researcher and teacher educator at Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, and as a previous primary school teacher. I wish to focus predominantly on the SNA scheme, given my research in this area. Examples include my PhD research, inputs with the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, and the National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, work on the steering group of the SNA workforce development unit and multiple international collaborations and publications. I wish to forward three points for reflection, followed by three action points.

First, I wish to recognise and celebrate the Government's commitment to underpinning key SNA publications with cutting-edge research. This includes fieldwork with stakeholders, national and international reviews, and expert input. Examples comprise the comprehensive review of the SNA scheme and the work of the SNA workforce development unit. Ireland now holds a leading position internationally, where other jurisdictions are looking to us as a source of SNA or paraprofessional guidance. This is, indeed, a point for celebration.

On reflection point 2, while celebrating our commitment to research, we must reflect on the breadth and complexity of the revised SNA role, as presented in policies. From the inception of the childcare assistant scheme in 1979, the SNA role has always focused on non-pedagogical care support. However, the role, as presented over time in policies, has evolved significantly, encompassing a multifaceted support function. The breadth and complexity of this support role must be acknowledged, now lying far beyond the original focus on basic or fundamental care needs alone.

This leads to reflection point 3. If we wish to translate our research-based policies into quality practice that promotes positive student outcomes, additional resourcing and implementation structures are required.

Research indicates that, in responding to rising pupil needs within large class sizes, the roles of teachers, special education teachers, SETs, and SNAs have become increasingly stretched. Often through necessity and-or goodwill, SNAs have been filling the multiple gaps in our system beyond policy prescription, where teaching, therapeutic or psychological supports are, in fact, required.

Additionally, research highlights a critical tension between student support and autonomy, where SNA training gaps can inadvertently constrain student independence. SNA over-proximity and over-prompting can lead to students' over-reliance on support and reduced opportunities for engagement with teachers and peers. My own research has revealed how SNAs can become agents of academic differentiation, with an emphasis on task completion over skill development. Ultimately, without adequate training and resourcing, we risk failing to bridge the gap between policies and evidence-based practices that foster students' holistic development and independence.

Based on these reflections, I now present to the committee three action points. These align with cutting-edge literature, including from the NCSE and the European agency.

On action point 1, we have a duty of care to ensure all education staff are comprehensively trained. Positively, the most recent SNA workforce development plan presents a detailed roadmap for training and quality assurance. SNA practices must be informed by evidence-based theories and frameworks, and measurable against indicators of effective practice. Examples might include the scaffolding frameworks, the prompting hierarchy and regulation-first approaches. This can ensure that SNA-student interactions facilitate students' independence, social relations and holistic development.

On action point 2, we need to focus on capacity building of our wider school systems to realise a whole-school approach to inclusion. A collaborative approach to the student support planning process is required, including student voice, with role clarity on how student targets can be achieved. Herein, the SNA must act as the bridge between skill-based pedagogical input from the SET or the class teacher and autonomous pupil functioning. Ultimately, a reduction in SNA-student support over time should be viewed as an indicator of success rather than a cause for concern.

Other actions to support capacity building include protected time for collaboration, a focus on the continuum of teacher education, professional development of school leadership and the establishment of communities of practice.

Finally, on action point 3, we need to expand our level of specialist supports available to schools. As outlined in the Department's 2025-28 statement of strategy, all children and young people need access to enhanced "therapeutic and mental health and wellbeing supports". The programme for Government's introduction of the embedded therapy supports represents a very positive advancement. However, the promise of an extension to special classes and mainstream schools needs to be realised, ensuring that we have domain-specific expertise to support all students to reach their potential, while upskilling key education staff, such as our SNAs and SETs.

Let us celebrate the road that Ireland has travelled to date, particularly our dedication to underpinning policies and action plans with the best research and evidence in the field. Nonetheless, let us not get complacent. We now have a duty of care to translate policy and action plans into best practice. We also need to ensure that research-informed decision-making remains our guiding light on the road ahead. Combined, this can ensure that our education system truly reflects the vision of our Government to be "A world-class education system where every child and young person is supported and nurtured to achieve their full potential and where barriers to their learning are removed."

I thank Dr. Griffin. We will now proceed to members' questions. There are six minutes per member. I usually allow an overrun of 30 seconds or so to conclude. I remind members to give adequate time for people to respond to the questions they are putting. They may hear, every now and again, a little tap on the glass. It merely means to wrap up and conclude.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe uile as ucht a bheith anseo agus as ucht a ráitéis tosaigh. Tá fáilte mór rompu.

I would like to ask what the witnesses make of the recent decision of the SNAs to reject the Department's plan. Supposedly, clarity was given and the 72 hours were dealt with but it was still rejected. Do they sense there is a mistrust towards relevant authorities due to the disaster in February? Where can it be improved upon in order for them to want to accept?

Apologies, but that is outside the scope of what today's meeting is about. In line with a decision here last week of the Chair, we will not put that question to the witnesses, if that is okay. If the Deputy wants to proceed, I will give her extra time.

Will the Cathaoirleach explain why?

We have invited our witnesses here not-----

Not to talk about SNAs.

Not specifically on that matter. There are a lot of delicate discussions going on and we do not want to prejudice them here at the committee. I apologise.

May I rephrase it?

I will add on extra time.

May I ask how we can improve upon the recent plan?

I am advised that could be beyond the scope as well, sorry.

I do not have a difficulty speaking to it.

Apologies, Deputy.

Okay. Let me see. I would love to also hear about the issue of the SNAs filling gaps as a result of teacher shortages, similar to what Dr. Webster described happening with TAs. I, myself, have seen it over the years, with SNAs taking part in team teaching, station teaching and listening to groups reading. Resourcing seems to be the overall issue here. The Irish National Teachers' Organisations, INTO, is calling for 1,000 new teachers. I would agree. If we had more teachers, it would help with a lot of the issues we were having. Maybe they all would like to speak to the issue of SNAs filling gaps.

One of the key issues that has been mentioned here is capacity building. We have a vision laid out by the National Council for Special Education in terms of the progressive realisation of inclusive education in the system and that will require a systems-based approach to realising that vision where inclusive education becomes a core shared value of the whole system. If you start from that position, you are then building on a framework that is rights based, strengths based and neuro-affirmative. You are starting from a position where you prioritise professional learning for principals, SNAs, teachers and therapists, and some of that jointly together. That transformational piece in terms of professional learning will be required in the capacity building and the vision for the future has to be around that joint capacity building. In that way, you will hopefully reach a situation where students with special educational needs, additional needs or any need in the system can be addressed by the right person, be that the therapist, the specialist teacher, the class teacher or support from the SNA.

Capacity building is where I see that issue sitting.

I will expand on that point. In the comprehensive review of the SNA scheme in 2018, one of the biggest findings from that research was the idea that SNAs were filling gaps in our system. At the end of that piece of research, it talked about the need for a new school inclusion model. The NCSA looked at the whole system and, as part of that, it talked about the need for additional therapy, psychology and behaviour supports. One of the big pieces of research that followed that was the demonstration project where therapists worked in schools to support children with special educational needs. Those included speech and language therapists, SLTs, and occupational therapists, OTs. The findings from that were significantly positive.

One interesting aspect of therapists coming into schools was that a lot of the support was at tier 1 of the continuum of support, so it was at a whole-school or classroom level. Although they were supporting individual children, they were empowering staff - teachers and SNAs - and parents. When we think about gap filling we are looking at the broader system and at the idea that unless we have other therapists, behaviour supports and psychological supports, our SNAs automatically, out of necessity, goodwill or both, start to fill these gaps. Thinking about that broader system and what we actually need is far more important. That new model of the embedded support systems is a really positive advance in our system. However, as I said in my opening statement, we need to start ensuring it is advanced to mainstream and special classes.

That leads to another question I have about the research on SNAs being overstretched. Is that as a result of filling in gaps or did she notice too many SNAs in any situation? Did that ever happen?

No, it was not a case that there were too many. An interesting point was made by Áine Lynch two weeks ago when she said it is not always about looking for more. Sometimes it is about looking at the number of staff we have and at the capacity they have to deliver what we need. The SNAs I worked with during my PhD studies were overstretched in the context of engaging in the therapeutic supports and support for learning in the areas where there were not enough other professionals to fill. On the question of whether there were too many of them, it was not a case that there were too many but that the capacity of the SNAs needed to be upskilled. The SNAs said that to me. One said to me that at times they felt they needed a degree in counselling because they were working with children who are vulnerable and have trauma as a background and that they, the SNA, needed to ensure they were working in a safe space with these children. It is the idea that the SNAs are overstretched to the point that they knew their qualifications were not meeting the job that was presenting to them.

Very good. We have a new Chair so we will go back to my first question.

The Deputy may have another 30 seconds because of the other issues.

We will continue. Where does Dr. Griffin see the upskilling happen that she says the SNAs need? Could that happen within 72 hours? Do they need more? Should it happen in our training colleges?

The workforce development or action plan has an excellent proposal for the training that needs to happen. There is a dual approach there. SNAs need level 6 training. In the research conducted for the SNA workforce development plan, 70% of the SNAs that were surveyed, which was one third of the workforce at the time, already had a level 6 qualification or above. It is about then looking at that level 6 qualification and at the specialist training they potentially need for the setting they are in. The SNA workforce development plan in the action plan also looked at the need for induction in the schools. Each school setting is a unique ecosystem, and we need to look at what each needs. Another big part of my PhD research, which Professor Travers also talked about in his opening statement, is the idea of frameworks for practice. I can come back to that point if the Deputy wishes.

I thank the witnesses. One point raised repeatedly in their opening statements is the need for clarity with respect to the role and a shared understanding of the SNA role as fundamental. Where clarity is absent, significant challenges arise. I think we hear that in terms of what may be mission creep on one side and the same on the other, with potential impacts at both ends. Will the witnesses comment on whether the new circular adequately addresses those issues? If not, how might it be improved? When I hear about filling gaps I hear a lack of recognition and a lack of respect. It is mission creep. SNAs are filling the gaps and the jobs that others do not do. Will the witnesses speak to the importance of clarity of role to recognition and respect?

With regard to clarity in the role and talking about respect, we have had a long history of neglect in terms of examination of the role. There are SNAs experiencing a mismatch between the policy and the expectations in schools in terms of what they were actually doing. There is a long history of that and there is a sense that it can lead to mistrust. On the process with the SNA development plan, where you have that history of neglect and mistrust over a period of time, it may require more than one iteration to get this right. I see it as a longer term process.

With regard to the present plan and clarity about the role, it goes a long way to respecting what is actually happening. There are two dimensions. One is about the core care needs, and that was always there. There can also sometimes be a misconception about the core care needs. When we talk about core care needs we are talking about toileting, feeding, movement and sensory regulation. For many children with complex needs, these care needs are also part of their learning goals. SNAs were not just involved in care with regard to those areas. They were also intimately involved in prompting, using visual supports and so forth in those core care needs. I do not think that was ever sufficiently recognised.

The second component is support for learning. The plan is clear that the teacher is responsible for the direction of learning, teaching new concepts, skills, knowledge and so forth. The SNA's role is supplemental; it is supportive of that. There is absolutely an opportunity to reinforce skills, to help with the generalisation of skills and to help build independence, engage in prompt fading and so forth and encourage that to help with transitions to support therapists. That is in the plan and it is to be welcomed. However, because we are coming from a long history of neglect and lack of appreciation of the role-----

I thank Dr. Webster.

It is an interesting question.

When I looked at the role when we started the SNA workforce development plan, part of me wondered whether we needed to go right back to where it started initially with the childcare assistance scheme, which was fundamental care and the core care needs that have now come up, such as feeding and toileting, or whether we needed to look to the expanded role that was happening in practice. The SNA workforce development plan, through all its consultations with all the different stakeholders, came to the point that role creep had crept in. We needed to acknowledge what was happening on the ground but do so in light of the evidence. A fundamental part of relooking at the role was ensuring that whatever we put into that circular was underpinned by evidence to ensure we were not going beyond the scope of what was going to improve student outcomes.

Rob Webster might like to speak to the point of the support for learning. The UK has the teaching assistant role, which took on a teaching aspect. When we look to the evidence in that, we see that when professionals who are not trained in pedagogical input do that, it actually has a negative correlation with student outcomes. I respect the fact that any of the action plans, policies or circulars we have come out with are evidence based. That is really positive. The support for learning piece is support for learning; it is not learning support. I think we have tackled that part very well. However, in tandem with this circular, we need to think about what that looks like when we train our SNAs. To date in training there has not been a focus on what it looks like to help to move a child from the pedagogical input from the class teacher to the point of independence and what that SNA piece in the middle does. That is where our training really needs to come. If we are to have core care needs and student-support duties, we need to understand theoretically how we support a student to get to independence, working with the teacher and SNA in combination.

I thank the witnesses. Not for the first time, we are having a much-needed discussion on SNAs and the significance of the work they do. Dr. Griffin mentioned that from an international perspective we are not doing so badly. That is not a bad thing and she mentioned that we should celebrate that. Before listening to her statement, I would have thought that we should not have been. It pleases me no end to think that the journey we have been on has got us to where we are at now, as one of the leaders. I was interested that one of her three reflections was that we are leading internationally.

Her second reflection was on the multifaceted support that SNAs offer their students. The third reflection was that the role has become stretched. We all know that the population is increasing and that the number of children presenting with special needs will increase as a consequence. Based on projections, do we have any idea of where we need to get to in terms of enrolments and teaching support? If we do not prepare for that, inevitably those same people will be stretched. The other thing we have learned over the past couple of months is that SNAs and SETs need to be respected. They need to have job security and certainty about their role in the school. How does Dr. Griffin read the future within the SNA scheme of things? Are we at a reasonable state of preparedness or are we lagging behind?

The action plan proposed by the SNA workforce development unit is very clear in providing a five-year plan for where we need to go across five main domains in terms of education. Whether that is progressed is an IR discussion matter. It is suggested that in September there will be 25,000 SNAs in the system, which is a huge number. It comes back to the question of looking to the wider system, in terms of projecting how many more SNAs and SETs we potentially need. It is about looking at the system and where the gap filling that we spoke about already needs to occur. Can bringing in therapeutic supports, bringing in more psychology and bringing in more behavioural supports start to address matters?

Dr. Webster and Professor Travers will be very familiar with the work of a really prolific researcher in the American context, Michael Giangreco. He refers to Maslow's hammer. I really like this analogy. He says that "it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail". He is talking about the human tendency to be over-reliant on a familiar tool to the exclusion of other potentially more appropriate tools. It is worth reflecting that to date we may have fallen into the trap of Maslow's hammer where a child needs some level of support. Dr. Webster's opening speech referred to this: a child needs support and we seek more SNA support.

Projecting to the future, we need to look not just at the SNA workforce but at the broader support systems and think about that Maslow's hammer analogy. We need to ask ourselves if there is more room for NEPS to increase the workforce. What about behavioural supports? What about therapeutic supports? What about administrative supports? Obviously, what about more teachers? When we bring all that together, we are then meeting the actual needs of the students in front of us rather than asking for more SNAs to fill the gaps that might be filled more appropriately by other therapists. That is not to knock the work of SNAs. I have great respect for the work they do. We all need to be very clear about the lanes we are in and align the needs of our students with the professional who can best meet those needs.

I referenced this last week in the context of a different discussion. Two weeks ago, I undertook to visit a school which was hands-on doing its SNA. It was part of the summer programme. I came away thinking that all legislators and representatives should see this kind of work and get a feel for what goes on in that classroom. While those students were there, the parents and guardians were getting a much-needed break. The effect was twofold. It resonated with me. They were getting mentored and taught through a system that will definitely bring positives for them primarily and also for their families.

I have a few questions for the witnesses. Professor Travers mentioned fostering independence among students with additional needs. I am a former teacher and I worked with many SNAs who were excellent. I also noticed that sometimes students could become over-reliant on the SNA. Sometimes it was not by their wish and it was the SNA who felt they had to almost control what they were doing. I recall one young lad who loved football but the SNA did not want him to go out and play football at breaktime. I do not know if she just did not want to go out herself and have to stand around or what it was.

A few months ago, we had some witnesses who were visually impaired. They talked about their time in school. They felt the SNAs did not give them enough independence. It should be seen as a mark of progress when somebody needs less and less support. Is this a big issue? Does it relate to training? How do we combat that in our schools?

As part of the research for the workforce development plan, we looked at various models of SNA paraprofessional educator support internationally. One of the models that is fairly prevalent in Ireland is one-to-one support. We found that there were a number of negatives in the literature in relation to the overreliance on such support. One such negative is that it could lead to dependency. It could also act as a barrier with regard to a young person with additional needs interacting with their peers. It could also reduce access to specialist teaching or to class or subject teaching. These are three risks that were highlighted in the literature in the context of overreliance on the one-to-one model. It is a feature of the Irish system that we need to look at. That is where professional learning comes in.

If we think about it from an SNA perspective, if they are in a context where they do not have job security and there is no redeployment scheme, there is a nervousness in terms of doing themselves out of a job. In a sense, we could say that there are perverse incentives built into the system in terms of maintaining support as against reducing it in order to increase independence. That is a definite risk which has been identified both internationally and nationally.

The witnesses are talking about models in other countries. Dr. Webster referred to teaching assistants. I am not totally familiar with their exact role. The name suggests it involves assisting a teacher, but is it similar to the SNA role? Is it to assist the teacher with students who have additional needs? What precisely is the role of a teaching assistant?

It is very similar. There are different kinds of teaching assistants. Professor Travers spoke about those who work one to one. There are teaching assistants who are assigned to individual children. There are also more generalised teaching assistants who might support a classroom or a teacher. There are teaching assistants who work with small groups of individuals who are falling behind or who have additional needs. As we have been saying, there is a lack of clarity about what it is that they are supposed to do and not do. There are various mixes of teaching assistants doing these things. It is somewhat incorrect to say that we have a type of teaching assistant and that they only do that kind of thing. There are some who are more involved.

Notionally, the job of a teaching assistant is classroom support or one-to-one support. However, we see them getting pulled into doing things that are not part of their job description. I mentioned covering for absent teachers. There is quite a lot of flexibility in there. Given their lower status in the hierarchy relative to teachers, teaching assistants are very often not in a position to resist the redeployment that comes from a senior leader, so they have to get on with it.

I apologise, I have drifted a bit from the question. To all intents and purposes, teaching assistants are very similar to SNAs but, as we were saying, there has been a drift towards teaching assistants doing instructional pedagogical support. It is accepted that this is what they do, although there are stakeholders such as teachers, who would sooner not see it that way.

I thank the witnesses for being here and for all of the information they have provided. My first question is for Dr. Griffin. She stated that Ireland now holds a leading position internationally whereby other jurisdictions are looking to us as a source of SNA paraprofessional guidance. Will she indicate which jurisdictions are looking to us? Do they have SNAs in their educational systems? My understanding is that the Irish education system, particularly in the context of the role of the SNA, is unique. It is also my understanding that there is a difference between a teaching assistant and an SNA in that the former can teach numeracy and literacy whereas the latter do not. There is a very distinct difference in my understanding.

As Dr. Webster said, he, I and a number of international colleagues are part of an international teaching assistant research network. A number of other researchers in the field of teaching assistant, paraprofessional and SNA research are involved. A big point to highlight is the field of research in the area of SNAs, paraprofessionals and teaching assistants-----

What are these countries and how do we define what constitutes a paraprofessional if SNAs have a unique role? I am really wondering whether there is a strong comparison of like for like or if we are comparing different jobs either slightly or more than slightly.

We are absolutely comparing different permutations of the support role. That is where the term "paraprofessional" comes in - to encompass all of it together. Depending on the country or a particular area of a country, the role can look very different or can be defined differently. What we are seeing as part of the international teaching assistant research network is that the majority of countries do not have policies to guide the practice. They have these assistant roles in schools that are engaging in some support tasks but there is not a policy guiding their work. When other countries look to Ireland, they look to see what the policy looks like. Jurisdictions such as Germany, parts of America and the Netherlands have either a teaching aspect to the support or care, or it is undefined. What we see in most countries we are looking to is that the care part or the teaching part of the support is undefined, so the support is whatever is deemed best. Interestingly-----

I am sorry, but I am specifically wondering about what countries are looking to us. There is the UK-----

Yes, the UK is looking to us to see our policy. We have colleagues in Germany. In the international teaching assistant research network, we have colleagues from Germany, the Netherlands, America and Shanghai. All of them are looking to see what our policy looks like. We have collaboratively come together to write papers in order to try to see-----

Is it to improve each system? Are they looking to Ireland because it has a really good system and they want to look at it to see how they can improve their systems or is it a sharing of what is happening in Germany, the UK and Ireland in the context of the common challenges they face and how they can work together to figure out what best practice is?

It is the latter. We are researchers coming together to look at what the research says. When we write papers, we do so in the hope those papers will advise policy.

The policymakers are not coming together.

I understand that we are looking at the caring role, but the role of an SNA is different from that of a teaching assistant.

That is true.

The role of the SNA is very specific. It is just to look after the care needs, not the educational needs, of the student. In the course of her research, has Dr. Griffin seen a trend to change or evolve the role of an SNA to make it broader and to encompass more of what a teaching assistant does, or what a paraprofessional does in Germany?

We have taken the best international research and put that into the new Circular 0032/2026. We have avoided going to the teaching assistant role because the research is telling us that when we assist teaching when the training is insufficient, it has negative consequences for student outcomes.

I agree with Dr. Griffin. I am almost out of time. We might have a second round later. In terms of the research that is here from UCD or DCU-----

It is DCU.

I thank Dr. Travers. My son goes to DCU, so I should know that. This idea that the over-reliance on SNAs can have a negative impact came through clearly in all of the opening statements. I am almost afraid to ask this question. Does this-----

Will Deputy Callaghan get the question answered quickly?

It will not be a quick answer. I will ask it in the next round.

Is the Deputy sure?

Yes, because I need some time.

I am a graduate of Mary Immaculate College, where I studied primary teaching. Regarding the education and psychology course, I am guessing that Dr. Griffin is one of the leading people in that department. It seems to me that the students acquire an incredibly useful skill that leads to better informed decision-making in the classroom, such as when they go and take a teaching position in a local school. They can plan and are probably more skill-equipped than someone who has done the general teacher training, but it also seems to be a skill that is not fully utilised. We have this Government policy about in-school therapeutic supports, but educational psychological is peripheral to schools. It is done through a referral system, yet there may be someone further down the corridor who has a huge skill set but may not have the clinical skills and there are limitations. Are we fully utilising that skill set when we are producing these wonderful graduates with a degree in education and psychology? Are we using them effectively in the Irish primary school context?

That is an interesting question. I lead the programme in education and psychology. For those who may not be familiar with the programme, it is a dual degree. Students who complete the four years have a degree in primary school teaching accredited by the Teaching Council of Ireland and they also have a degree in psychology which is accredited by the Psychological Society of Ireland. It is a unique programme in Ireland and we have roughly 35 graduates every year. It is a small pool.

They are a fantastic cohort to work with and, yes, coming out with a degree in psychology adds to the education degree. Are we fully utilising their skill sets in school? When every teacher goes in as an NQT, they are starting that journey of teacher education, and our B Ed psychology students use their psychology in practice in the classroom to support all of the children in front of them. Many of them end up going into SET roles straight away where they can start to use psychology in practice.

One of the key features of the B Ed psychology programme that helps those students is that they undertake an undergraduate dissertation in psychology in their final year. They really get to grips with the impact of research on practice. They use research to inform their practice, so that when they are in the classroom and they are faced with a problem that they may not have the answer to straight away, they are looking to the evidence base. Rather than looking to social media or asking the teacher next door, they are starting to go to the research and use that, and that is a fabulous skill.

Bear with me because I am trying to big up this degree.

Yes, of course.

I think it is wonderful, but I am trying to find out whether, from a decision-making point of view, we are fully utilising it on this side of the House. I am sure that the graduates are coming out with the best of skills and they are utilising them well in their own professional contexts. When I was teaching, we referred a child on to NEPS. It was usually written on a little note and dropped to the principal's office and NEPS may see them in a few months. It is an arduous way to get a consultation for a child. Is there potentially someone down the corridor in the next SET room or classroom who has that skill set? When they graduate from Mary Immaculate College, is there any gap in qualification between what they have as graduates and what a practising NEPS psychologist has? Are they identically qualified at that point?

No, they are not. The graduates of the B Ed psychology programme have an undergraduate degree in psychology but to be an educational psychologist one needs to go on and do a doctorate in educational psychology, which is an additional three years, and undertake practice experience in between. Our NEPS psychologists or anybody coming out with a professional doctorate in educational psychology is at a much higher level in terms of theoretical and applied knowledge.

That pretty much answers that question. When that pool of 35 students graduate, does the Department track them in any way through their career progression? We are firefighting a lot of the time in terms of educational psychology, and it strikes me that we have a cohort who, while they would have to do an add-on and get a doctorate if they wished to become an educational psychologist, have a professional skill that they are using individually but which could be a shared skill for the school community. Is the Department tracking any of those people? Is it encouraging them to progress or giving them bursaries to go on to do the three years in order that we can bridge that gap between in-school support and this never-ending list of NEPS referrals?

I am not aware of any automatic bursaries that would be handed to graduates of that programme, but most of our graduates after a year or two of experience are back into the educational field in some shape or form, looking at higher education. Many of them are applying for things like the INTO grants or applying for teaching council grants to do additional research thereafter. It is worth saying that our initial teacher education degree also has a research component, but when graduates come out with a degree in psychology, they have specific psychological skills that are applicable to each level of the continuum. It is something we could harness more. These students generally return to education and they want to use their psychology in practice. It is about harnessing that skill within a school. They are obviously highly sought after by principals, and they often end up with leadership roles within their schools. The majority of them recognise, however, that they have an undergraduate degree in education and psychology and they need additional training thereafter. It is their interest in research that helps them in the classroom. One area we need to foster more is our NQTs from the B Ed programme returning to research each time. We have a huge number of initiatives out there like the T-Rex project, which is funded by the Teaching Council and many other bodies, to encourage teachers to use research to inform their practice. Unless we are doing that, we are failing.

I want to conclude by saying that our committee travelled to Finland in January. One school that we visited had an in-school educational psychologist.

That is fabulous.

It also had a nurse and a physiotherapist, and it was all in-house. We will hopefully get to have a fully resourced system like at some point.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. I apologise for being late. It is just the nature of this place. This meeting has been interesting. It is nice to have Professor Travers here. I attended DCU for my doctoral research, so it is great to have him here.

I am interested in broadening the conversation a little bit because it follows on from what Deputy Crowe said regarding other countries and where inclusive education is in the local school. People go there and get the service, supports and therapies that they need. Do the witnesses think this is the model we are moving to in Ireland? If we are moving to that model, there are a lot of things that will need to happen.

We are getting rid of early intervention classes. There are reading classes and language classes. There are mild general learning disability schools that are very reluctant, and rightly so, to be closed at all because where will those children thrive if it is a massive school that does not have an inclusive ethos, which we should all have? There are a lot of stepping stones that need to be in place in order for a local secondary or primary school to be genuinely inclusive. How far away are we from that? What stumbling blocks are in place to prevent that from happening? Which country has done this well? It is not that it is perfect - no system is perfect; we know that - but which country has done it well?

I thank Deputy Cummins. In terms of that of that wider, as I said, progressive realisation of inclusive education, we ratified UNCRPD Article 24. The UN committee had general comment No. 4 on Article 24. It spells out the trajectory that countries need to take to realise a fully inclusive system. We embraced that approach through the Government acceptance of the National Council for Special Education's advice. However, we have a total mismatch between our adherence to that advice and actual policy implementation at the moment. We have gone from having under 2% of the student population in separate specialist provision, 1% in special classes and 1% in special schools. Internationally, that was really good. Bar the likes of Italy or New Brunswick, very few had less than 2%. However, we are now heading towards 5% and 6% of the student population in separate provision via special classes or special schools. Whatever about special classes, they are at least aligned with mainstream classes and mainstream schools and there is the potential for the evolution of that model to be more inclusive than it is. There is evidence that it is a fairly rigid model at the moment. However, the development of 16 new separate special schools is highly problematic for our commitment to inclusive education on a number of grounds. Since 2011, we have committed to having new special schools co-located with mainstream schools. That does not guarantee collaboration or mutual reciprocal learning but it is a first step, if we have the right leadership and structures and principles in place. We have developed separate special schools. You could argue there was a strong rationale for that back in the fifties and sixties. There absolutely it is not any more. We have gone in a very different direction. We are bussing children huge distances to these schools. We are reducing opportunities for peer interaction. We are splitting up families. Some are going to the local school and some are travelling to these separate special schools. Now, do not get me wrong; special schools do retain a lot of children-----

There is a place.

Yes. They do retain a lot of children in the system who have been failed by the mainstream system. However, the research suggests they leave the mainstream system off the hook in terms of changing. As long as we have a continuum that has separate special schools, unfortunately, there is an incentive built into the system to move children out of it. Therefore, a certain amount of energy is being used within schools to engineer the movement of children out as against being solution-focused and asking what we need to do. If a child thrives in a certain setting, we should ask what supports are required and what additional help they need to get. That is a barrier. The aim has to be around building the general education system so it is responsive to the full diversity of needs in the human family - full stop. That has to be our vision and, unfortunately, we are on a very different trajectory of separate specialist provision, which is highly problematic.

I thank Professor Travers. I will come back in. I will not push it.

This particular question might be more geared towards Dr. Webster; I am not sure. Senator Tully asked a similar question earlier. In comparison with the teaching assistant role in the UK, is the SNA role in Ireland too rigid? If there was more flexibility for an SNA in the classroom to act on intuition, could we enhance teaching and learning in the classroom or is it the case, as Dr. Griffin touched on earlier, that it is more about people knowing their role and staying in their lane? Is it too rigid in Ireland?

I do not really know. I do not really know enough about the Irish context to answer that. That is why, as Dr. Griffin said, we have a network of people coming together so we can share with and learn from each other and try to reach a consensus or an understanding and answer questions on that. I do not really hold enough information about the Irish SNA situation to give the Senator a fair answer to that, to be honest.

Does Dr. Griffin have a view on that?

Will the Senator repeat the last part of the question?

Is the SNA role itself is too rigid, basically, or should there be more flexibility for an SNA to act on intuition around the classroom? If an SNA is assigned to one student but sees that another student is acting in a way that is impacting on him or her, the SNA could discreetly intervene. That is one random example.

That is really helpful. The new Circular 32/26 on SNAs provides flexibility in it. SNAs used to be assigned to students. It was one-to-one support. A child or a parent might say, "That's my child's SNA", whereas now the SNA, in policy, is deemed a whole-school resource. It is up to the school to deploy the SNA as it sees fit. One of the outcomes of the SNA survey the SNA workforce development unit conducted highlighted that 7% of SNAs are now assigned on a one-to-one basis to children and the rest are either supporting between two and five students or five-plus students. That is quite a big number. In that support for learning role that is outlined in the circular, it talks about the SNA being able to support inclusionary practises at a whole-class level as well. There is a lot more flexibility now in the new circular that is being proposed in terms of the SNA having flexibility when it is looking at core care needs and the student support duties. It is actually built into the role there, although it is very clearly stated in the circular that the responsibility of teaching still remains with the class teacher. That flexibility has actually been introduced.

It strikes the right balance.

I think so in terms of giving the school the autonomy to deploy the SNA and his or her skills thereafter in light of the circular.

It is based on the needs that the principal or leader of the school sees in terms of-----

Exactly. It is a needs-based approach to care needs.

That is fair. I thank Dr. Griffin. I have one other question. We have focused mainly on SNAs and SETs today. In terms of mainstream teachers - I asked about this a few weeks ago as well - should continuing professional development, CPD, in inclusive education be mandatory for mainstream teachers? I am particularly concerned about those who might have come into teaching before there was the sense of awareness about special needs that there is nowadays. If there is not mandatory CPD, how can we be sure that a teacher has the skill set to adequately guide the class in the right direction to cater for the needs of all students? Should it be mandatory and what would it look like if it were to be mandatory?

That is a really fair question. The European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, EASNIE, report that came out very recently compared the professional development of Irish teachers with that in Finland. One of the key recommendations was that CPD for teachers should be mandatory, but it also recommended considering whether it should be mandatory or whether it should be incentivised. Any teacher I have come across in my years has a hunger for increased knowledge and teachers in general are quite reflective practitioners where they seek more knowledge. Sometimes, however, that question arises as to whether the CPD should be mandatory.

That report talks about potentially linking the mandatory CPD with Teaching Council registration. There is that question. I definitely think incentivising CPD would be a good way forward. For example, engaging in quality CPD might allow teachers to accrue credits that could result in some sort of higher qualification. In general, teachers are engaging. I could not get over the number of teachers and SNAs who give up their free time in the evenings to engage in online webinars. It is actually incredible. That was particularly the case during the time of Covid but, even afterwards, the webinar space just exploded. Teachers, SNAs and SET teachers are going around with their headphones at home at 7 p.m., listening to online webinars so that they can do better the next day. There is an automatic hunger for evidence-based knowledge among teachers. It is a question of whether to make it mandatory or to incentivise it. The EASNIE report really points to that.

I agree. I was a secondary school teacher and I have seen the hunger for knowledge Dr. Griffin is talking about. Would that additional qualification be linked to salary? Would there be a B post-style additional-----

It is an automatic win for teachers engaging in CPD to be recognised. In most other posts, increased expertise is valued monetarily. It makes sense. The career progression ladder in teaching can be difficult. If an individual does not wish to become a deputy principal or principal, where do they go? While there are A posts and B posts, incentivising extra learning and knowledge for mainstream class teachers and linking that to pay is a win-win for all.

I am out of time but I thank all three witnesses for coming here and presenting today.

We will now have a second round of questions. Members will each have three minutes this time.

Senator Curley has asked what I was going to ask. It is clear that training and collaboration is needed. I know we have covered this a bit but I wonder where the time is going to come from. Is this going to be another case of reality and policy being at odds with each other? We have discussed incentivising training for teachers. I did all of my training in my own time. Last week, we heard from principals that there is a structural deficit in teacher training for SEN. Do the witnesses believe the training colleges are doing enough in this respect? What gaps exist at the moment? How do we structure the training and the teacher collaboration?

I thank the Deputy. When we look at the continuum of teacher professional learning across initial teacher education, induction and CPD, we see that a lot of progress has been made on initial teacher education, which now includes a mandatory component on inclusive education. There may be a lot of variability in the quality of that experience for students. That may need to be looked at. It can comprise discrete modules, embedded principles throughout the programme and a placement component. Some would also offer elective components as part of the initial degree. We have made huge strides in the induction of newly qualified teachers and the support they receive. The biggest gap is definitely in the area of CPD.

Let us take specialist qualifications as an example. We have roughly 20,000 special education teachers across SET, special classes and special schools. The Department funds roughly 350 postgraduate places each year across the colleges and universities. These are postgraduate certificates or postgraduate diplomas. Speaking just for DCU, we have 115 places on one of our programmes each year. We regularly get more than 200 applications for those places. We run another course, which is a postgraduate certificate in autism education. For the past 20 years, there has been just 18 places on this course. It has not shifted in all of that time, despite requests. We get 70 to 90 applicants for that programme each year. As Dr. Griffin said, there is an appetite for increased professional learning at the highest level. These teachers' courses are funded and they get substitute cover, which ranges from three to eight weeks but these are level 9 programmes and they commit a huge amount of time to them. On the question of the colleges doing more, there is definitely capacity to do more in that area.

I am sorry that I had to step out for a few minutes. I will pick up on the idea of an evolving relationship with the SNA and the independence of the child with Dr. Griffin. Is there good evidence that happens or does not happen? How might we improve to ensure it does happen? What are the challenges in ensuring a system is successful in that regard?

There has been a lot of research in the area of independence, both nationally and internationally, questioning whether children are making strides in this regard. I refer both to children with special educational needs and to those who are developing typically.

Project IRIS, which was run by Richard Rose, Michael Shevlin and a number of other researchers, was a three-year longitudinal study on special and inclusive education. It highlighted mixed findings in the development of independence among students with special educational needs. Some had made great strides but others had not. Most of this was linked to individualised student planning. When targets were clearly set in student support plans and followed through on in the school, the students were making those strides in independence. Where that was not the case, that dependency model kicked in and we saw over-proximity, over-prompting and so on. The research called for educators to collect data on independence-related outcomes for children. The system is very good at looking at things like academic outcomes, but what about independence? This is a fundamental life skill.

We also have recent data from the NCSE. A 2025 study was called Paths, Tracks, Gaps and Cliffs: The Post-School Transitions of Students with Special Educational Needs. This was about students who had just finished their secondary school journey and who were going into post-leaving certificate studies. What was really interesting in the data was that 60% of those school leavers who had special educational needs felt they were not prepared for living independently after the school journey. That data was compared to data from the Growing Up in Ireland study, which focuses on the general population. That study showed that 21% of typically developing students felt they were not prepared for adult life. That research called for our school system to focus on developing things like children's independent learning skills, self-advocacy skills and self-determination skills.

As I have said, we are very good at looking at the academics, but what about the broader areas of development? Policies talk about building children's independence. That is key to the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act. The SNA circular talks about children reaching their full potential. If we want that, we need to ensure our curriculum looks at independence as a construct. We have done very well at primary school level. In the redeveloped primary curriculum framework, one of the key competencies is being an active learner. Part of that is being an agentic learner.

We need to think about this when we start to look at senior cycle reform and make sure independence is there, not just for those with special or additional needs, but for all.

The increased number of special schools was mentioned. I am worried that we are segregating our education system. There is a huge lack of trust in the system among parents at the moment. I have spoken to parents who want their children to be in a special school because they might have had a poor experience in a mainstream school. They may have been put on a shorter day or have been suspended. Students have even been expelled and it is as a result of behaviours that are due to the lack of therapeutic supports. The behaviour is often a result of frustration but some of it is a lack of training in how to avoid triggers and how people can understand the child in front of them better. How can we build trust? Training is probably the biggest issue, but I presume more resources are needed. Therapies are being rolled out in schools and that is a good way to do it. Is that done anywhere else, in any other jurisdictions the witnesses have looked at? Are therapeutic supports provided in schools? I think they are in American schools. Is it done anywhere in Europe, in particular?

The Senator is right about the lack of trust in the system. It is one of the drivers behind the request for more separate provision. On how that might be changed, we know from the psychology of the change process that we go through a sequence of seeing something, to feeling it and then to believing it. Parents will need to see concrete examples of schools doing this. That means building capacity in schools with the correct specialist support, including SNA support and therapeutic supports where appropriate.

The education therapy in schools programme has started in special schools. That can unfortunately create an incentive to move towards where the services are. It was a pity we did not have the capacity to roll it out in mainstream schools, special classes and special schools at the same time. However, when we get to a situation where we are able to have that embedded support in the mainstream system, there will be a tipping point where parents will be able to see their children are able to access the appropriate supports to meet their needs, strengths, interests and challenges in a way they can thrive in the system and go to school with their brothers and sisters in the local context but I think they will need to see it for the trust to be built.

I finished up by asking about Professor Travers's opening statement where he said "This framework outlines the key principles underpinning the effective deployment of special needs assistants within an inclusive, rights-based education system." Does his research show that is what we currently have in Ireland?

It is what we aspire to. I do not think we have it yet. When we think about rights, I see that as meaning being aligned with Article 24 of the UNCRPD, which instils the right for young people with a special education need to be able to access the general education system without discrimination and with the supports and accommodations they need. We are not in that position yet, but we absolutely need to aspire to it. The framework we presented was in the context of moving towards that.

I wondered if it was creating and maintaining or just creating because it is not quite there yet.

No, it not there yet.

Is there much of a distance to travel? How large is that distance? Is there anything in particular the Government needs to press for to ensure that distance is covered in the shortest possible time?

My understanding is that the Department is working on a journey map towards inclusive education and that a number of elements have already been examined. We have the SNA workforce plan. Granted, it may need further iterations. The review of the EPSEN Act has been completed. We have the technical support instrument report from the European agency advising us on teacher professional learning so a number of elements are falling into place. We also have the education convention at the moment. What I hope will arise out of that is that we will move to a situation where we define inclusive education in legislation as rights-based and aligned with the UNCRPD and that we will then build the capacity required to realise that, particularly through professional learning. That will require huge inclusive leadership at all levels because we are still embedded in a kind of charity or benevolence model of thinking in how we provide services and not enough attention is given to what rights mean. That can be seen in the implementation of the Disability Act and the assessment of needs waiting list debacle, and that is only a right to the assessment, not to the supports after the assessment.

How does that compare with the international standard? Are we outliers? What I am trying to ascertain is whether other countries and jurisdictions share the challenges we in Ireland have.

Dr. Griffin might answer briefly, if she does not mind.

We have done well as a country in terms of policy advances. My colleague, Dr. Johanna Fitzgerald, was here last week and she spoke about that. Policy-wise, we are doing well. We are aligning with the rights-based approach

We just need to implement it.

Yes, it is the practice or follow-through.

It is the gap between "say" and "do".

I am up next with questions.

The Education Act 1998 recognised that exceptionally able was also a category of special educational need. I remember finishing up in Mary Immaculate College and doing the special education module. At the end of it, one of the lecturers who I will not name, said "By the way, at the other end of the spectrum, there are children who have exceptional needs and the State is not catering for them". We have done a huge body of work on inclusive education. A huge amount of taxpayers' money is funnelled into special education, but it all seems to revolve around children who struggle with the curriculum and struggle socially, emotionally, behaviourally and cognitively. Still, 28 years later, we are not catering for exceptionally able children, insofar as I can see. We might differentiate with higher order questions or a different worksheet. There might be some different homework, but there are a lot of incredibly able children coming through our classroom system, some of whom might have Asperger's syndrome. There could be co-existing things, both difficulties and exceptional abilities. Does Professor Travers think we are adequately catering for them 28 years on?

I do not. We have a long way to go in provision for the full variability in the system. In DCU we have just launched a new postgraduate programme in gifted education for teachers, parents and those interested in that area. We also have the Centre for Talented Youth in the university, which is an amazing facility.

It is wonderful to see the thousands of children who have benefited from those programmes, but absolutely, that needs to be-----

I suggest to the clerk and secretariat that we may in our future body of work look at the exceptionally able child in the Irish classroom, who is legislatively provided for, but the reality does not really exist.

May I ask one final question? The in-school therapeutic counselling emotional support model has been quite good. It has been a recommendation of this committee that that be rolled out at second level. Do you have strong views on that? I presume you are supportive of that general view, are you?

Yes, a hundred per cent. We are looking at the continuum of education from early years right through to leaving certificate, or second level and beyond. Children's needs do not stop when they finish sixth class; those needs continue. You hope that, over time, the needs start to decrease, but for some children these are enduring needs and they need that therapeutic support right through. This is not just about the one-to-one support or the group-based support; it is also about building capacity into the system. It is about going back to that demonstration project, where 70% of the support from the therapy came to empowering the staff at a whole-school level. We are trying to build capacity all the time. Bringing this into second level would be an absolute game-changer. We need to think, in terms of those therapeutic supports, not just about the SLT and the OT, who are the main focus, but beyond that, such as psychology. NEPS does a fantastic job, as do many of the HSE services that support schools and the voluntary bodies, but we also need to think about the psychology, the behaviour and all of that broader, holistic development of children.

I fully agree on that point.

Going back to my earlier question, to give the other witnesses a chance to answer it, if we want to have a fully inclusive education system, what are the blockages that exist at the moment? Is there a model elsewhere that we could use here, bearing in mind that no model is perfect?

I thank the Deputy for that question. Professor Travers talked very eloquently on this topic. We first need to ask ourselves what we mean by inclusion. We are very clear on the difference between integration, which is about placement, and inclusion, which is about actually adapting our system to ensure that it addresses the needs of all children, having that all-inclusive campus or school that includes all children.

We also need to think about the idea of placement in classrooms. Our classes are still very large, and if we have a very large range of learning abilities and needs within the one class and we are expecting one class teacher to address all those needs, although you may have support from the SET coming in and support for learning from the SNA. The policies clearly state that the responsibility for the education and development of the child or the young person lies with the class teacher. That is a huge responsibility if you have a wide spectrum of strengths and needs within your classroom. We need to look to class size as well if we want this inclusive school system because there is only so much that one person can do in terms of differentiation.

In terms of other countries, Professor Travers mentioned New Brunswick and Italy. Both have been highly cited as having moved towards that inclusive school system. Going back to Dr. Webster's point, each country needs to look at our own system and how that works and does not work and then try to adjust that. It is back to the definition of inclusion and then back to class size. Both those matters really need addressing to ensure that real inclusion can happen in our classrooms.

On the countries, Portugal is a country that is definitely worth looking at. There are two elements there that are interesting. One is the regional supports it has. Outside of the ETB structure, we lack that kind of regional support. The second is school-to-school collaboration. There are within-school, between-school and beyond-school factors. In the between-school factors, there is a lot more we could do in terms of schools working together to meet the diversity of needs in a locality. Unfortunately, with falling pupil enrolments, there tends to be more competition than co-operation between schools. That is definitely something we could look at.

It is a matter of the communities of practice we are trying to bring in. There is a lovely funding scheme through the Teaching Council that encourages that, whereby you bring two-plus schools together. I am aware of a school in the Cork region that is using observation as a tool there, based on Teaching Council funding. They are going in and observing positive inclusive practices in each other's schools as a means of capacity building. The more we can do this rather than seeing, as Professor Travers said, schools in competition with one another, the more we can try to build the capacity of schools through those communities of practice.

I apologise for being late in. I had another committee meeting and a couple of other things on at the same time. This is so important. I did get to read the witnesses' opening statements, and I thank them for being here.

Deputy Cummins asked last week whether we should look at other countries and she has asked a similar question this week as to where we are in terms of fully inclusive schools. Dr. Griffin stated:

Ireland now holds a leading position internationally, where other jurisdictions are looking at us as a source for SNA or paraprofessional guidance. This is, indeed, a point for celebration.

I wanted to put on the record last week and I want to put on the record this week that we are doing a lot. However, Deputy Cummins is right to ask if there is anything else we could be looking at. Professor Travers mentioned Portugal as well. Does the new circular encompass full inclusivity? I am particularly talking about severely complex needs children, which I think the Chair also spoke about. In addition, in a few of these reports, gap filling and subbing have been mentioned, whereby SNAs have been taking on a lot of other roles because of, as Dr. Griffin said, class sizes or maybe teachers not being able to get subs in on time, and they jump into that role. As to what I have said about complex needs and whether the new circular helps with the gap filling and the subbing, have the boxes been ticked in the circular?

The new circular breaks down the duties of the SNA into the core care duties and then the student support duties. By addressing both those components, we see the larger role of the SNA being encompassed. A point I highlighted earlier, and it is important to highlight it again, is that the circular is underpinned by the evidence base, so we have not gone beyond that. We have highlighted in the literature review that was undertaken by DCU the areas that the paraprofessionals should not go into, such as teaching assistant, when they do not have training in that area. We have ensured that our circular remains within the evidence base, which is really positive. This then is about realising this, so if this circular is then going to be put into practice, we need to ensure that the SNA training actually addresses all these components. It is a really large circular.

The training has come up a lot, as has the time and where they will do the training. There are courses, including lots of courses the NCSE has online, about maybe giving SNAs time outside of what they are actually working at, like an extra day or two days or something to actually get the training done properly.

In that circular and in the action plan, they have highlighted that the 72 hours would be broken into two domains. One is about supporting the planning and preparation at a school level but then the other is the learning and development time. It is really positive that that is highlighted, but we need to ensure that there is a framework then for guiding the training and that we are looking at quality training. There is a huge amount of training out there - online webinars, different private entities providing training - but we need to standardise that training to ensure that there is high-quality training and that the training now aligns with the circular because there is a support for learning role within that circular now. Is that going to be addressed? We talk about supporting participation and engagement in learning. That is a very discrete role compared with learning support, which is a pedagogical role. We are very clear that the SNA should not be engaging in teaching, so we need to ensure we have theory underpinning what they do. There are numerous frameworks out there in the theoretical space that can teach an SNA how to support learning in a very safe way that actually brings a child from being dependent to independent, but unless we are actually teaching to that, SNAs will go by their gut instinct, and that is not what we want.

We want evidence-based practice in classrooms to translate this policy or circular into practice.

Dr. Webster is online. In his opening statement, he said “In Germany and Ireland the issue is less direct teacher substitution and more about the expansion of care and access roles into emotional, pedagogical and specialist support." I ask him to explain a bit more about that.

The gap in this can be looked at in two ways. One is that we are replacing a body. There is a teacher who is supposed to be taking a class and is absent. This gap-filling is more about filling gaps in the teacher's knowledge as the teacher does not know enough about X, Y or Z, and the support staff are coming in to address that. That is where that is coming from.

If an SNA or another person, like the TA, who is helping out in the classroom substitutes for the teacher, he or she is now in the teaching role. He or she is removed from the emotional, supportive role he or she has which is more important for the student who needs it. That is what is happening.

That is another consequence of that. If people are backfilling for somebody else and not doing what they are there to do-----

To solve that requires more teachers.

Yes, more teaches. This whole thing is about-----

Allowing SNAs to do their role.

Yes. The conversation has been around SNAs but at least part of what we are talking about is that we either do not have enough teachers or teachers who are sufficiently skilled. There is that parallel conversation.

That concludes our questions. On behalf of all members, I thank all three witnesses for coming in and sharing their insights, expertise and knowledge. We are doing a whole body of work here. We all have the shared ambition to improve the outcomes for children with special educational needs and examine the areas of SET and SNA roles.