1. I rish L earning S upport A ssociation FACING THE FUTURE Plenary Session Chair : Denis Burns (UCC) Panel Mary Byrne (NCSE) Michael Cullinane (NEPS) Finnbarra Ó Murchú (DES Inspectorate)

2. Irish Learning Support Association DELIVERY FOR STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS __________________ A better and more equitable way 6 th March 2015

3. Overview of presentation 1Reasons for change 2Proposed new model 3Benefits of proposed new model

4. Level of support currently in schools  Approximately 58,000 Teacher posts  11,000+ learning support and resources teacher posts in schools 5,000 in-school already 6,225 available to NCSE (for 2014-2015 school year)  Approx. 850 Special Classes  Over 1,100 Special School Teachers  c.11,000 SNAs available to NCSE

5. Reasons for change  Current system: Learning support teachers on basis of enrolment Resource teachers on basis of diagnosis unfair rewards advantage rewards unnecessary “labelling” of children not linked to improved educational outcomes

6. Learning Support  School A 250 students 10 students qualify for Learning Support  School B 250 students 75 students qualify for Learning Support Both schools get the same level of learning support

7. High Incidence RT model @ pp  c.700 teacher posts  Out-of-date basis for current allocation

8. Resource Teacher scheme can be unfair Requires formal diagnosis Private assessments used by parents at great cost Each category of disability has spectrum of ability Basis for allocation under the old model may no longer be available when the HSE moves away from a diagnostic based model. Current resource teaching scheme can be unfair

9. Members of working group Eamon Stack (Chair) NCSE Mary Byrne (Sec) NCSE Don Mahon Inspectorate, DES Maureen Costello NEPS Peter Archer ERC James O’Grady NCSE Council Brian MacGiollaPhadraig Inspectorate, DES Áine LynchNPC Anne English Primary principal Katherine O’Leary Parent and Board Director, Inclusion Ireland Antoinette Nic Gearailt PP principal, ACCS Albert O’Donoghue DCYA Pat Kinsella NCSE Council Eithne Fitzgerald NCSE Council and NDA

10. Guiding Principles  All students, irrespective of special educational need, are welcomed and enabled to enrol in their local schools.  Allocation of additional teaching supports - in line with the school’s educational profile.  Deployment of supports by schools - in line with students’ identified learning needs.  A whole-school approach to be adopted.  Evaluation and monitoring of use of resources- at school and system level.

11. Some research findings  There is no single, ‘best’ funding model but good principles: Targeted to areas of most good e.g. early intervention Coherent with policy e.g. greater inclusion Inclusive of complex needs Need for accountability Transparency and equity

12. 22 Consultation meetings  Right direction is being taken  Mix of achievement and educational disadvantage measures required  Capacity to provide for early intervention and prevention within schools is important  Need to reduce administration burden on schools  Concerns: Communicating new model Back door to cuts.

13. Proposed New Model One Scheme: 11,000 Support Teachers Step 1:Allocation provided to schools: School educational profile component: Complex special educational needs Standardised test results Social context of school Baseline component provided to every mainstream school Step 2: Deployment/Utilisation by schools

14. Complex special educational needs  Very significant difficulties in functioning (physical, sensory, cognitive, adaptive, social and communication)  Need highly individualised and differentiated learning programmes  Most children identified at birth or by entry to primary school  NEPS continuum of support *  Descriptors and protocols for collection of information to be developed *The National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS) has developed a system to help all schools to identify and support children with special educational needs, known as the NEPS Continuum of Support

15. Educational Achievement  Standardised test results provide a robust basis to distinguish between schools  Provides information on the percentage of students in each school with learning difficulties  All students below average (at or below STen 3)  Differential weighting – e.g. STen 1 higher than STen 3

16. Social context of a school  Risk factors that signal a potential for educational disadvantage include gender and social context Boys generally more likely to have SEN (overall ratio is between 2:1 and 3:1)  Data on social context to be collected from every school Lone parenting Reliance on social welfare Local authority housing English as an Additional Language Membership of the Travelling Community

17. Baseline component:  Facilitate enrolment & inclusion of students  Allow for prevention and early intervention  Be graduated in line with school enrolment  Represent a small proportion of total available resources

18. Weighting of elements  Statistical modelling exercise will be applied to data to determine appropriate weightings  Weighting should be assigned in the following order:  Complex Needs  Standardised Test Results  Social Context

19. How might students be identified under the proposed new model? If a decision is taken to implement the proposed model, students could be identified as follows:  Low achievement all students scoring below average on standardised tests  Social/Communication complex needs before school or NEPS continuum of support in school  Physical, Sensory complex needs before school or NEPS continuum of support in school  Emotional/Behavioural Social Context of school

20. Supports for schools  Independent Appeals process  Resources in place for an allocation cycle  Guidance to assist schools: Use and deployment of resources Recording and reporting outcomes for students that are linked to individualised learning plans  Inclusion Support Service Exceptional Circumstances

21. Reporting School would be asked to report about:  How their additional resources are used to benefit students with special educational needs  Outcomes for students linked to individualised learning plans  Outcomes Academic-achievement Attendance Quality of life End of school outcomes

22. Benefits for students and families  Over 11,000 teachers will be allocated in line with need  No waiting for diagnosis; No unnecessary labelling  Parents will no longer have to pay for private consultants  Resources will be in school on enrolment Over time  More professional time available for assessments

23. Benefits for schools  Schools will have greater stability in terms of staffing  Schools will be better able to: plan for students put training in place for teachers deploy resources in line with students’ needs  Role of teacher assessment of students learning needs more valued Over time:  Less administration for schools in processing applications for resources

24. 30 linked recommendations in all Some other recommendations….. Future-proof use of Standardised Tests Development of on-line system for data collection Trained support teachers Objective external source for social context data Validation of school-based data DES to consider that allocation of resources dependent on  Fully inclusive enrolment policy  Students being supported to participate in school activities

25. Management of change required to ensure:  Any changes to the level of teaching supports in individual schools is properly managed  Sufficient time is allowed for further consultation with the education stakeholders - approach, indicators, weightings  Schools have adequate advice on how to allocate and use available resources  Interplay between new model and the systems used for other educational purposes is examined

26. 10 th Feb 2015 Minister Announces:  Establishment of a new Inclusion Support Service within NCSE to include the Visiting Teacher Service, SESS and NBSS  Current model for allocating resource and learning support teachers to be retained for the coming year, to allow for further consultation with the education stakeholders and for the new model to be piloted

27. Thank you

28. Revised Model for Allocation Teaching Resources for Students with SEN 1. RATIONALE FOR A REVISED MODEL 2. EFFECTIVE SEN PROVISION: NEPS PERSPECTIVE 3. NEPS WORK IN SUPPORTING A REVISED MODEL

29. Rationale for a revised model  Significant improvements in SEN provision  Many benefits for students with SEN

30. Categories can:  Help provide a clear description to parents  Help prevent discrimination  Contribute to training programmes for teachers.  Provide a greater understanding of children’s needs

31. Categories are also….  Based on a ‘deficit model’… negative descriptors  Labelling and lower expectations  Often involve a life long label….NCSE, 2013  Notion of distinct categories is questioned..  Limited usefulness in context of planning Norwich and Lewis, 2005  With-in child perspective….

32. Conclusion  Need to move towards a more inclusive, less stigmatising approach to resourcing SEN DesForges and Lindsay, 2010  Where resources are linked to educational needs  To achieve the goal set out in Circular 02/05 The allocation of additional teaching resources to schools… is intended to make possible the development of a truly inclusive school.

33. Effective SEN Provision? 1. Enhance capacity of school to meet diversity of needs 2. Implementation of evidence informed programmes 3. Effective educational planning, and review 4. Effective implementation of continuum of support process. 5. Close collaboration with parents and students

34. Enhance capacity of school to provide a whole-school response..  Early intervention makes a difference  Distinct needs: Language, learning, social development, bullying, isolation, loneliness …..Requires concerted whole school community responses…  Enhanced teacher competence, including well qualified SEN team  Good SEN structure: SEN team to review interventions, progress etc.

35. Implementation of evidence informed interventions  Some programmes and strategies are more effective than others.  Need to implement evidenced informed practice across the continuum of provision For universal, groups and individual needs

36. Educational planning and review  Across the continuum of need  Whole school planning  Class and group plans,  Individual support plans  Support plans reviewed regularly and modifications made to programmes.  CoS provides a coherent framework for this…links assessment and intervention, matched to level of need.  Reference NEPS Student Support File as a flexible approach to student planning

37. Parent partnership  Parent involvement has the potential to significantly improve student outcomes.  Parental consultation necessary when developing and reviewing school SEN policy.  Parental consultation when developing and reviewing student support plans.

38. Pupil involvement  Pupil involvement enhances the effectiveness of interventions  Students’ right  Provides new insights  Helps develop key skills, and independence  Need to gather data on students’ views

39. NEPS support for a revised model  Collaborating with teachers in identifying need.  Particularly in relation to students with complex needs  Multi-disciplinary working where necessary NEPS involvement: Directed more towards profiling students’ needs and strengths to inform teaching and learning, and educational planning.

40. NEPS support for a revised model  Advising and supporting around evidence informed interventions ….Across the continuum of support

41. NEPS support for a revised model  Working collaboratively with other services  Advising schools on the deployment of resources….implementation of continuum of support framework

42. QUESTIONS?

43. Thank you!