 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dáil Debates & Questions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
April 20 2010 Dáil Debates Parliamentary Questions
DÁIL DEBATES
Deputy Olwyn Enright (FG): asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his plans to introduce a partial capacity benefit scheme for people in receipt of illness or disability payments; the details of the way in which this scheme will operate; Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív (Minister for Social Protection): Work on draft proposals for a partial capacity scheme is currently under way in my Department. The Deputy will be aware that the structure of welfare provision in Ireland for people with illnesses or disabilities reflects a view that people can be categorized as being either capable of full-time work or incapable of full-time work. The fact is that a strict binary approach fails to capture the reality that people with a disability may have the capacity to engage in the open labour market. While partial employment capacity may be difficult to assess, the absence of such a system means that people with substantial work capacity may exit the labour market prematurely. As has been noted by the OECD in its report on “Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers”, which examined the structures of welfare provision for people with disabilities in Ireland and in a number of other OECD countries, the focus within welfare systems on incapacity rather than capacity carries negative consequences at a personal level for people with disabilities and their families. Deputy Olwyn Enright: I welcome the theory behind this idea and it is important. The present system whereby a person gets permission from the Department to do 20 hours work for a year or up to three years and then that permission is suddenly removed is not ideal. Some people can do only approximately 20 hours or part-time work. Will there be an element of compulsion in the scheme or will it be voluntary? Assuming it is a success, people return to employment and savings to the Exchequer are made, how will those savings be used? I was not convinced by the earlier answer on FÁS but I suggest we still need to build up the facilitation service that exists, particularly for those with disabilities. I tabled this question with regard to people with mental health difficulties in particular. I have spoken to Amnesty International about this and I feel there is a real difficulty in the assessment of mental health under the structure for the disability payment at present. People with genuine mental health difficulties find it more difficult to prove their cases than a person who walks in with a physical difficulty. This problem needs to be addressed. Suggestions have been made that there should be stronger liaison between the Department and community mental health teams and GPs with regard to people with mental health issues. When will it happen and will the Minister consider beefing up the service to assist those people? If they are to try to go back to work they will need supports to enable them to do so. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The Department is very keen to proceed with this. When they came to me they were all very anxious with regard to timeframes. I would like to see the draft scheme first. No more than what I stated to Deputy Shortall earlier, I like to see what I am being presented with as a Minister prior to jumping in to make a decision. The principle is simple and I do not think anyone could argue with it. However, the practicality and the detail — often the devil is in the detail — are where I see the challenges. Many people on illness benefit might feel threatened that they would receive only a half payment or a quarter payment. However, many others in the working economy might — if I may put it bluntly — see an opportunity here. I would like to see the scheme and then have an open debate with Deputies to examine it from every angle to ensure we are doing the right thing by people who genuinely have a disability. As Deputy Enright pointed out, all of us have faced huge challenges with regard to illness claims in constituency clinics because two people could have the same disability but depending on one’s job, education and capacity, one’s ability to find employment might be very different from that of another person. This is where it gets complex. I would like to move forward with this but I do not want unintended consequences arising. I am more than willing to engage with Deputies, and perhaps through the committee would be best in order that we can tease out the best way forward. The Department proposed to me that we do it in the form of the Bill. I am not convinced that we should not do so prior to the Bill and give it time to get the best results for those with a disability and to have a scheme to deal with the problems of the existing system, which I do not think is satisfactory. A person receives permission to work 20 hours a week and inevitably it is rehabilitative but often it is not rehabilitative in getting that person back into full employment because he or she will never have the capacity for full employment. I do not think I can tease out the details of the challenges I see in it in the House today but I am more than willing to engage with Deputy Enright on the matter. Deputy Olwyn Enright: I welcome that. In the proposals put to the Minister by the Department how was the scheme thought up? Was it devised as a mechanism to save money from illness benefit payments or was it devised as a mechanism to assist people to get back into the workforce? There is a big difference between them. The thought process behind it could inform us very much prior to the next debate. Does the Minister have a timetable for the introduction of the scheme? There were suggestions from the Department of a pilot project. Has any progress been made in that regard? What would be the practicalities of that? Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: There was talk about putting it into legislation, starting from the beginning of next year. I have not seen the detail; the devil is always in the detail of these things. The concept is fine. I am not going to commit myself here to doing that because I will not introduce a scheme unless I believe it is robust. I understand the idea of the scheme is to facilitate participation in the workforce by those with a partial capacity who might at the moment find it very difficult to participate in the workforce. There is no expectation in the Department of major savings from this scheme. I hope to get the scheme in the very near future and that we would have an opportunity to discuss it and review it from every angle. I am sure there will be a significant input from people like the Deputy who have knowledge of this area to ensure we do not rush headlong into a scheme that does not work. On the other hand I do not want to delay matters indefinitely. I will be pressing that I will get the scheme very soon. I will review it and make my comments. I will be robust in my critique of it. We can then look at the best way to tease out how such a scheme might work. Sometimes schemes are introduced with one view and operate very differently on the ground because people see them in a different way from the way that the person who designed the scheme thought they would see them. PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS Deputy Emmet Stagg (L): asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if the qualifying criteria for domiciliary care allowance have been altered since administration of the payment has been switched to his Department; the reason many children presenting with exceptional care needs are now being refused; and the details of the refusal rate both before and after the transfer of the function to his Department. Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): Since 1 April 2009 this Department has been accepting new claims for Domiciliary Care Allowance (DCA). This follows the transfer of the scheme from the Health Service Executive on foot of a Government decision to reallocate certain functions between Departments and Agencies as part of the health service reform programme. The main change to the qualifying conditions for the scheme is that the DCA scheme is now a statutory scheme with the primary legislation provided for in the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2008. Prior to the transfer the eligibility criteria for the scheme was set out by way of a Circular from the Department of Health and Children. The medical criteria as set out in the Department of Health and Children circular states that children “who have a severe disability requiring continual or continuous care and attention which is substantially in excess of that normally required by a child of the same age may qualify for DCA”. The medical criteria as set out in Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2008 require that “the child has a severe disability requiring continual or continuous care and attention substantially in excess of the care and attention normally required by a child of the same age”. As there were no agreed national medical guidelines for the scheme while it was administered in the Health Service Executive, an Expert Medical Group was established in advance of the transfer of functions. This Group was chaired by this Department’s Chief Medical Adviser and comprised senior medical personnel from the HSE as well as eminent professionals in the areas of physical disabilities which affect children and child psychiatry/psychology. The primary purpose of this Group was to agree a set of consistent and objective guidelines for use nationally in determining eligibility of children for the scheme. The report of the Group was reviewed independently by external medical experts. The Expert Medical Group considered that the most appropriate way for the Department to conduct assessments for medical eligibility was by assessing evidence submitted by the claimant rather than by way of individual examination by the Department’s Medical Assessors as they are not involved in advice or treatment of the child. The new process in operation in the Department involves the submission of a detailed statement by the parent or guardian of the child; a detailed statement by the child’s General practitioner; and any other relevant evidence from qualified experts who have examined the child. This evidence is assessed by designated Departmental Medical Assessors who have received special training. DCA is payable in respect of children who have a disability so severe that it requires the child needing care and attention and/or supervision substantially in excess of another child of the same age. The care and attention received must be given by another person, effectively full-time so that the child can deal with the normal activities of daily life. The child must be likely to require this level of care and attention for at least 12 months. Eligibility for Domiciliary Care Allowance is not based primarily on the medical or psychological condition, but on the resulting lack of function of body or mind necessitating the degree of extra care and attention required. Each application is assessed on an individual basis taking account of the evidence submitted by the applicant. Since 1 April 2009 the Department has been accepting new claims for Domiciliary Care Allowance. In the period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 a total of 4,575 applications have been received in the required format, of which 4,330 cases have been fully processed by the Department’s Medical Assessors and 2,736 of these applications have been deemed not to satisfy the medical criteria. The Deputy will appreciate that this Department does not have the information sought in relation to the scheme before the transfer on 1 April 2009. Where claims are deemed to be ineligible on medical grounds, it is because it is considered that the requirement of care and attention and/or supervision is not substantially in excess of another child of the same age who does not have a disability. In the case of an application which is refused on medical grounds, the applicant may submit additional information and/or ask for the case to be reviewed by a different Medical Assessor specially designated for this task. Where a person is not satisfied with the decision of a Deciding Officer they may appeal the decision to the Social Welfare Appeals Office.
Deputy David Stanton (FG): asked the Minister for and Family Affairs the amount expended under the supplementary welfare allowance travel supplement scheme and the funding made available for it in 2010; the amount expended under this scheme in 2009; the funding provided by his Department for the rural transport scheme in 2009 and 2010; and his plans to introduce a cost of disability payment to assist people with disabilities in meeting additional costs in accessing transport and social services, as outlined in the Citizens Information Board report, Getting There — Transport and Access to Social Services, published in February 2010 Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): Under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme the Community Welfare division of the Health Service Executive (HSE) may award a travel supplement in any case where it appears to the Executive that the circumstances of the case so warrant. The supplement is intended to assist with ongoing or recurring travel costs that cannot be met from the client’s own resources and are deemed to be necessary. Up to the 9th April 2010, the expenditure under the travel supplement scheme was €340,000; the projected outturn for 2010 for this scheme is €1.3 million. The total expenditure for travel supplements in 2009 was €1.3 million. Where the travel costs are non-recurring the HSE may make a single payment to help meet essential, once-off, exceptional expenditure, which a person could not reasonably be expected to meet out of their weekly income. Up to 9 April 2010, the expenditure for once-off travel costs was €633,000; and the projected outturn for 2010 for this scheme is €2.6 million. The total expenditure for once-off travel cost payments in 2009 was €2.6 million. The Free Travel scheme, administered by my Department at an annual cost of €73.5 million in 2009, is available to people over age 66 and to those with disabilities in receipt of certain social welfare payments such as Invalidity Pension, Blind Pension and Disability Allowance. This scheme permits a recipient to travel for free on most CIE public transport services, LUAS and a range of services offered by a large number of private operators in various parts of the country. Free travel is also available on cross-Border journeys between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Customers aged 66 years and over can travel for free on journeys within Northern Ireland. In addition to the Free Travel scheme, the Department, in recognition of the carriage of Free Travel passholders, provided annual funding of €1.5 million towards the Rural Transport Programme in 2009 and will do so again in 2010. It is acknowledged that Free Travel passholders clearly benefit from the initiative, particularly those who had no access to public transport prior to the setting up of the Programme. The social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, includes a commitment that the issues around the introduction of a cost of disability payment will be considered following the development of a needs assessment system under the Disability Act. This follows an interdepartmental examination of the issue by a working group and research commissioned on its behalf by the National Disability Authority. The working group, which was chaired by the Department of Health and Children, concluded that consideration of the introduction of a cost of disability payment is dependent on both the availability of comprehensive data and, in particular, a structured process of the assessment of need. The Sectoral Plan of the Department of Health and Children, in accordance with Part 2 of the Disability Act 2005, establishes a system for the assessment of individual needs for people with a disability. I understand that further consideration by the Department of Health and Children of the issues around the cost of disability will be contingent on the full implementation of the needs assessment system provided for in the Disability Act. Deputy Brian O’Shea (L): asked the Minister for Finance his plans to relax the conditions for obtaining a primary medical certificate from the Health Service Executive; Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): The Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Scheme provides relief from VAT and Vehicle Registration Tax (up to a certain limit), and exemption from motor tax, on the purchase of an adapted car for transport of a person with specific severe and permanent physical disabilities. The disability criteria for these concessions are set out in the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations 1994. To get a Primary Medical Certificate, an applicant must be permanently and severely disabled within the terms of these Regulations. Some 13,500 people benefited under the scheme in 2009 at an overall estimated cost of €56 million. Any changes would have to be considered in the context of the annual Budget. Deputy David Stanton (FG): asked the Minister for Health and Children the organisations, groups, bodies and so on that receive Health Service Executive funding or are contracted by the HSE to provide services to children with intellectual disabilities in the HSE south; the number of children who are receiving these services and the location of same; Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): I wish to advise the Deputy that due to industrial action affecting the Health Service Executive it is not possible for the Executive to supply the information requested. If this matter remains of continuing concern to you, however, I would invite you to raise it with me again in due course. Deputy Andrew Doyle (FG): asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if grant aid is available for the management and functioning of disability advocacy groups; Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): My Department has no funding out of which moneys are generally available for disability advocacy groups. However, currently, my Department funds People with Disabilities in Ireland, which represents people with disabilities, their families and carers and aims to ensure that they have the opportunity to contribute to and influence policies and decisions that impact on their lives. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh (SF): asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the measures taken to enact the recommendations of the 2002 Survey of the Level of Learning Disability among the prison population here; Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): As indicated in 2003 when this report was published, there are strong reservations about interpreting the main finding of the study as suggesting that over 28% of the prisoner population in the country have a mental handicap. Any such suggestion is strongly disputed by people who work with prisoners in a professional capacity on a daily basis and there is a reasonable basis for argument that this unexpectedly high figure could be accounted for by measurement of factors attributable to educational deficit and social disadvantage, rather than learning disability per se. The authors of the report recommended that a number of priority steps be taken in relation to prisoners with learning disability. These recommendations fall into three main categories: (i) psychological assessment of prisoners identified as having a learning disability, (ii) provision of training for personnel on needs and supports for people with learning disability and (iii) development of appropriate educational programmes in prisons designed to address the needs and learning characteristics of prisoners with learning disability. In this context I am informed by the Director General of the Irish Prison Service that, at present, the routine medical, probation and education assessments at committal result in prisoners with learning disability coming to notice early in their time in custody. Such prisoners are provided with a range of supports appropriate to their circumstances, including, as required, referral for psychological assessment and special arrangements within education units and workshops. Such prisoners may also be referred to the Prison Psychology Service for assistance in coping with their incarceration and in dealing with their offending behaviour. As necessary, on a case by case basis, the Psychology Service, in conjunction with the Probation Service, makes contact with community-based services in supporting the reintegration of offenders back into the community. This would include voluntary and statutory services working within the learning difficulties sector. Since September 2007, all recruit prison officers (RPOs) complete a Higher Certificate in Custodial Care programme. The objective of the two year Higher Certificate programme is to provide a professional development framework for RPOs and equip them with a range of skills and competencies that will enable them to carry out their duties in a professional manner. Many of the modules cover areas around mental health and wellbeing. The health care module covers health promotion, mental and emotional health, special health issues in prison and substance misuse. Other modules cover equality and diversity awareness, sociology for custodial care and ethics in custodial care. The Prison Education Service, which involves a partnership between the Irish Prison Service and a range of educational agencies including the VECs, provides a broad programme of education for prisoners following an adult education approach. Education centres are in operation in all prisons and places of detention. There is substantial flexibility in education delivery, with significant provision for one-to-one teaching which is particularly relevant to prisoners with a learning disability. Following on the recommendations of the 2003 report commissioned by my Department entitled “The Prison Adult Literacy Survey — Results and Implications”, a number of significant initiatives commenced or were strengthened in the prisons. These initiatives parallel efforts to address adult literacy in the community. Among these are the fuller use of negotiated learning plans for all literacy students, introducing and supporting the FETAC level 1 and level 2 courses, the introduction of a standardised assessment framework across all prisons, devising and delivering the national 30-hour Initial Tutor Training course for new teachers and developing and rolling out a national Literacy Plan for Prison Education — work on which commenced in 2009. Deputy Tom Kitt (FF): asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if she will ensure that the National Theatre of Ireland is made accessible for people with disabilities. Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism (Deputy Mary Hanafin): I have no direct involvement in the day to day operations of The National Theatre of Ireland (Abbey Theatre). Any decisions made in relation to the matter raised by the Deputy are a matter for the Board and management of the Abbey Theatre, that operates independently of my Department. I have been informed by the Abbey Theatre that the main Abbey Theatre auditorium is fully accessible to patrons who require wheelchair and disability access. I am further informed that the Peacock Theatre is not readily accessible to patrons who require wheelchair and disability access. I understand that an architect has been retained to examine the feasibility of and the cost of changes which would be necessary to make the Peacock Theatre fully accessible. Deputy James Bannon (FG): asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will nominate a medical doctor to advise and guide persons with serious disabilities and health issues in regard to financial matters and entitlements; Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív T.D.) The Citizens Information Board (CIB), under the aegis of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, is responsible for the provision of information, advice, and advocacy on a wide range of public and social services, in particular to those with a disability. Advocacy services are provided through a Community and Voluntary programme involving 46 projects which focuses on representative advocacy for people with disabilities. The Citizens Information Board also provides advocacy through the Citizens Information Services focusing on access to services, welfare entitlements and employment rights. This type of mainstream advocacy is open to people with disabilities and the Community and Voluntary Sector Advocacy programme has created close links with the Citizens Information Services to ensure that people with disabilities are encouraged and supported to use the mainstream services where possible. People can access information and advocacy services on the Citizens Information website (www.citizensinformation.ie ); by phoning the Citizens Information Phone Service (CIPS), which operates Mon-Fri 9am to 9pm, (LoCall 1890 777121) ; or by dropping in to the network of 42 Citizens Information Services which provides face-to-face services to the public in 111 Citizens Information Centres nationally. Since July 2009 the Board has responsibility for the Money Advice and Budgeting Service (MABS). The MABS assists people who are over-indebted and need help and advice in coping with debt problems. There are 52 independent MABS companies operating the local MABS services from 65 locations throughout the country, with national support provided by the MABS NDL. In addition, the MABS National Telephone Helpline (1890 283438) is available from 9am to 8pm Monday to Friday and the MABS website can be accessed 24 hours a day at www.mabs.ie. I am satisfied that the Citizens Information Board, and MABS, meets the needs of people who require information, advice, and advocacy, including those with disabilities and I have no plans to extend these services to include the nomination of medical doctors. Deputy Andrew Doyle (FG): asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if grant aid is available for the management and functioning of disability advocacy groups. Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Deputy Éamon Ó’Cuív): The Citizens Information Board (CIB), under the aegis of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, is responsible for supporting the provision of information, advice, and advocacy on a wide range of public and social services. Advocacy services are provided through a Community and Voluntary programme involving 46 projects which focuses on representative advocacy for people with disabilities. The Board has a grant allocation of €45.87m in 2010. Deputy Ruairí Quinn (L): asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Science if she will publish a copy of the review conducted by the National Council for Special Education into the allocation of special needs assistants in schools; Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Science (Deputy Mary Coughlan): I wish to advise the Deputy that the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) has published its Report on the Review of special needs assistant (SNA) Allocation to Schools April 2009-March 2010 on its website www.ncse.ie. A copy is set out below for the Deputy’s information. A small number of schools remain to be reviewed and the NCSE has indicated that these will be reviewed in April. A final breakdown of the outcome of the review will be made available at the end of April. I wish to confirm for the Deputy that my Department is very supportive of the SNA scheme. It has been a key factor in both ensuring the successful integration of children with special educational needs into mainstream education and providing support to pupils enrolled in special schools and special classes. The SNA scheme will continue to be supported. I want to take this opportunity to state that the NCSE will continue to support schools, parents, children and teachers and resources will continue to be allocated to schools to meet children’s needs in line with my Department’s policy. Report on NCSE Review of SNA Allocation to Schools April 2009-March 2010 1. Context On 9 February 2009, the Secretary-General of the Department of Education & Science (DES) wrote to the Chairperson of the NCSE, Mr Sydney Blain, in relation to the allocation of Special Needs Assistants (SNAs) to schools. In her letter, she stated that an initial review of a number of schools, as part of the Department’s SNA Value for Money and Policy Analysis Review had indicated that there were instances where the work being carried out by the SNAs did not reflect the basis for the allocation of the post and where the level of SNA resources in some schools was greater than the proper application of the criteria would allow. In this context, the NCSE was requested to arrange for its Special Educational Needs Organisers (SENOs) to further review the SNA allocation in all schools with a view to ensuring that the criteria set out in the relevant circulars are properly met. The key circular, which sets out the care needs, which can be supported in a school setting, is DES Circular 07/02. Following a discussion at a meeting of the Council on 11 February 2009, the Council agreed to arrange for SENOs to conduct such reviews and requested that the Boards of Management of each school be informed of the review by the Department. Accordingly DES Circular SP ED 0009/2009 issued to all schools in March 2009, informing them of the review. The commencement of the review process at this time meant that the NCSE was effectively conducting a review of SNA resources currently engaged in schools in the 2008/09 academic year in conjunction with the resource allocation process for new enrolments in the 2009/10 academic year, during which over 12,000 applications for teaching and SNA supports would be received. In effect the review encompassed a review of current SNA resources together with the processing of those applications for additional SNA resources. 2. NCSE Process for the Review of Allocation of SNA Supports to Schools In general, the process attached to the review built on the established processes attached to the allocation of SNA supports to schools. In mainstream primary and post-primary schools, the allocations process was well embedded and schools were familiar with the overall approach. However, given the scale of the review, it was agreed that there would be a greater capacity for parents to be involved in the review process with the SENO, either by phone or at meetings convened through the school. In the case of special schools which cater for children aged between 4 and up to 18 years of age, the allocations process was less developed, primarily because these schools were established to provide exclusively for children with special educational needs (SEN). As the total number of children enrolled in these schools rarely changed to any great degree, the question of the need to apply to the SENO for additional resources did not always arise. 2.1 Mainstream Primary and Post-Primary Schools Since January 2005, the responsibility for the allocation of SNAs to schools was transferred from the DES to the NCSE. Each year the changes in the level of SNA support to schools is determined by
In some cases access to SNA was adjusted from Full Time access to Part Time access or removed entirely because of the improvement in the development of independent living skills of the child. However this was viewed by some schools and parents as a reduction in the level of support provided to the child and not as a positive result in the recognition of diminishing care needs or the development of independent living skills. In deciding the level of SNA support to be allocated to the school, the SENO would visit the school and examine the professional reports for each child with special educational needs, which have specified the care needs arising from the disability, together with the frequency and extent of the care needs as they arise in the school setting. This would enable the SENO to decide if the care needs described are eligible for SNA support under the provisions of DES Circular 07/02 and if the support required by the child can be met from within the existing school SNA resources or whether additional supports are required by the school. For example, a child whose care needs arise from behavioural issues, may be supported by an SNA who might also meet the care needs of a child who requires assistance with toileting. The process would also permit the SENO to discuss with the Principal, teachers and SNA the manner in which the care needs of the child arise in the school and also the records the school has maintained e.g. incidence reports. Parents would also be in a position to contribute to this process, as appropriate. Every school was requested to inform parents that the review was commencing and to invite them to contribute, should they wish, either by phone contact or by appointment during the review. In this regard, many parents participated in the review process. Finally the SENO would observe the student in the classroom and schoolyard settings, as appropriate, in order to assist in the decision making process. In some schools, the view was taken that this stage of the process constituted the entirety of the SNA allocations process and statements such as “the SENO only observed the child for 20 minutes and made their decision” were articulated during the course of the review. In this context, it is important to note that this stage of the process is designed to underpin statements that are present in professional reports or statements made by school staff and does not in itself constitute the entire decision making process. The outcome of the process enabled the SENO to determine to what extent a child with special educational needs, who also has identified care needs, may require access to SNA support on an individual basis or a shared basis, depending on the frequency and extent of the care needs. In this regard, it is important to note that the SNA is always working under the direction of the teacher in the class. 2.2 Special Schools The review of special schools required the NCSE to take into account a number of factors, which did not apply in the mainstream sector, primarily the fact that all children enrolled would have special educational needs. Special schools are allocated SNA resources on a class ratio basis (e.g. two classes of 8 children with a Mod GLD would be allocated one SNA between them). In many of these schools, the number of pupils enrolled might remain static as the number of new entrants would match the number of pupils leaving the school therefore the baseline allocation of SNA support would remain unaltered. Consequently special schools may not have sought additional resources for new entrants through the NCSE unless particular circumstances applied in relation to an individual child. However, given the policy of inclusion, which has applied in recent years, it was recognised by the NCSE that many of the children enrolled, would have significant care needs, as set out in professional reports and that an additional allocation of SNA support, over and above the baseline allocation, might be required to meet the care needs of individual or groups of children enrolled. Therefore in order to fully review the care needs of all children enrolled in special schools, the review of SNA supports was conducted by a team of 2-3 SENOs headed up by the SENO who is responsible for the allocation of resources to the school and was conducted over a number of weeks in stages, as set out below. In August 2009, the NCSE wrote to all special schools informing them of the commencement of the review in the special schools sector and that the SENO for the school would be in contact with them shortly. The SENO then wrote to the school signalling the commencement of the review and that it would comprise of 3 discreet stages in special schools namely
Outcome of Review Overall outcome Of the 4,000 schools, which are recognised under section 10 of the Education Act, 1998, in the region of 900 schools do not currently have an allocation of SNA. To date 2,913 out of approx 3,150 schools with an allocation of SNA, have been reviewed with the decisions having issued to the school. The remaining schools will be reviewed in April, after the Easter break but the outcome of the review of these schools will not materially impact on the overall outcome of the review. A final breakdown of the outcome of the review will be made available at the end of April. It should be noted that the tables set out below refer to Whole Time Equivalent posts (WTE) and not individual SNAs. Table 1: Overall Change in Number of SNAs in all Schools Reviewed (n= 2,913 schools) Number of SNAs Prior to Review 8,821 Following Review 8,463 Overall Change −358 Table 2: Number of Schools with a Change in Level of SNAs in Schools Reviewed (n= 2,913 schools) Number of Schools No Change in Level of SNA 1,502 Decrease in Level of SNA 832 Increase in Level of SNA 579
Outcome for Primary Schools Table 3: Overall Change in Number of SNAs in Primary Schools Reviewed (n= 2,283 primary schools) Number of SNAs Prior to Review 6,096 Following Review 5,801 Overall Change −295 Table 4: Reasons for Change in Number of SNAs in Primary Schools Reviewed (n= 2,283 primary schools) Number of SNAs SNAs Freed Up Because of Students Leaving 723 SNAs Freed Up Because of Diminishing Care Needs 534 SNAs Allocated to New Students 962 Table 5: Number of Primary Schools with a Change in Level of SNAs in Schools Reviewed (n= 2,283 primary schools) Number of Primary Schools No Change in Level of SNA 1,182 Decrease in Level of SNA 663 Increase in Level of SNA 438
Outcome for Post-Primary Schools Table 6: Overall Change in Number of SNAs in Post-Primary Schools Reviewed (n= 573 post-primary schools) Number of SNAs Prior to Review 1,707 Following Review 1,656 Overall Change −51 Table 7: Reasons for Change in Number of SNAs in Post-Primary Schools Reviewed (n= 573 post-primary schools) Number of SNAs SNAs Freed Up Because of Students Leaving 197 SNAs Freed Up Because of Diminishing Care Needs 199 SNAs Allocated to New Students 345 Table 8: Number of Post-Primary Schools with a Change in Level of SNAs in Schools Reviewed (n= 573 post-primary schools) Number of Post-Primary Schools No Change in Level of SNA 294 Decrease in Level of SNA 153 Increase in Level of SNA 126
Outcome for Special Schools A key factor in the review of Special Schools was that in most instances, the NCSE was not involved in the original allocation of SNA resources, unlike mainstream schools. Consequently this was the first detailed profile of SNA resources in these schools, obtained by the NCSE. Table 9: Overall Change in Number of SNAs in Special Schools Reviewed (n= 57 special schools) Number of SNAs Prior to Review 1,018 Following Review 1,006 Overall Change −12 Table 10: Number of Special Schools with a Change in Level of SNAs in Schools Reviewed (n= 57 special schools) Number of Special Schools No Change in Level of SNA 26 Decrease in Level of SNA 16 Increase in Level of SNA 15
Deputy Brian Hayes (FG): asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Science the number of special needs assistants in the Dublin west region, on an area basis, who have lost their jobs in the past 12 months. Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Coughlan): As the Deputy will be aware, the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) is responsible, through its network of local Special Educational Needs Organisers (SENO) for allocating resource teachers and special needs assistants to schools to support children with special educational needs. The NCSE operates within my Department’s criteria in allocating such support. The allocation for any school and any adjustments to that allocation depends on a number of factors such as the number of pupils with care/medical needs leaving, the number of new pupils, the changing needs of the pupils and any surplus identified. Furthermore, schools can make applications at any time with the result that the individual situation of any school can change and allocations are not static. The Deputy may wish to liaise directly with the NCSE in the context of his enquiry. I want to take this opportunity to emphasise that children with special educational needs will continue to receive an education appropriate to their needs. The NCSE will continue to support schools, parents, children and teachers and resources will continue to be allocated to schools to meet children’s needs in line with my Department’s policy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inclusion
Ireland, Unit C2, The Steelworks, Foley Street, Dublin 1, Ireland.
Tel: 01 8559891 Fax: 01 8559904 Email: info@inclusionireland.ie |