Transcript NCSE 2012/2013 allocations

Irish Learning Support Association
FACING THE FUTURE
Plenary Session
Chair: Denis Burns (UCC)
Panel
Mary Byrne (NCSE)
Michael Cullinane (NEPS)
Finnbarra Ó Murchú (DES Inspectorate)
Irish Learning Support Association
DELIVERY FOR STUDENTS WITH
SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
__________________
A better and more equitable way
6th March 2015
Overview of presentation
1
Reasons for change
2
Proposed new model
3
Benefits of proposed new model
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
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
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
High Incidence RT model @ pp

c.700 teacher posts

Out-of-date basis for current allocation
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
Members of working group
Eamon Stack
Mary Byrne
Don Mahon
Maureen Costello
Peter Archer
James O’Grady
Brian MacGiollaPhadraig
Áine Lynch
Anne English
Katherine O’Leary
Antoinette Nic Gearailt
Albert O’Donoghue
Pat Kinsella
Eithne Fitzgerald
(Chair) NCSE
(Sec) NCSE
Inspectorate, DES
NEPS
ERC
NCSE Council
Inspectorate, DES
NPC
Primary principal
Parent and Board Director, Inclusion Ireland
PP principal, ACCS
DCYA
NCSE Council
NCSE Council and NDA
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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


Social/Communication


complex needs before school or NEPS continuum of support in school
Physical, Sensory


all students scoring below average on standardised tests
complex needs before school or NEPS continuum of support in school
Emotional/Behavioural

Social Context of school
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
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
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
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
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
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
10th 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
Thank you
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
Rationale for a revised model

Significant improvements in SEN provision

Many benefits for students with SEN
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
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….
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
NEPS support for a revised model

Advising and supporting around evidence
informed interventions
….Across the continuum of support
NEPS support for a revised model

Working collaboratively with other services

Advising schools on the deployment of
resources….implementation of continuum of
support framework
QUESTIONS?
Thank you!