Head over to our T
Fianna Fail attacks special needs children
Read more about: Uncategorized 
Today is a good day for bad news. Batt O’Keeffe certainly knows this. He chose this morning to announce that he was closing the classrooms of over 500 special needs children. The Irish Times reports:
Minister for Education Batt O’Keeffe said 534 children in 128 primary school classes will be affected when the move is implemented in the next school year. The pupils will now be taught by mainstream teachers in regular classes.
While Mr O’Keeffe said today he did not know exactly how much money the measure would save annually, it is understood to be in the region of €7 million.
O’Keeffe’s plan is ludicrous. If these children could be taught in mainstream classrooms by mainstream teachers, then that’s exactly where their parents would have placed them already. Apparently, when Fianna Fail told us that Budget 2009 would protect “the most vulnerable” they weren’t talking about special needs kids.
Let’s see what else our clever minister had to say:
The minister wrote to the schools yesterday to inform them the positions were being cut due to the falling numbers of pupils with special needs in the classes. At present, each class has to have nine or more pupils requiring special needs assistance to qualify for extra support.
A spokesman for Mr O’Keeffe told The Irish Times that under the Department’s general allocation model, “all national schools receive additional teaching support to enable them to meet the needs of pupils with high incidence special needs ”.
Mr O’Keeffe said today 50 of the schools earmarked had four pupils or less in their special needs class. When the children are moved to mainstream classes, they will still have special needs assistants and access to a resource or support teacher, the Minister told RTÉs News At One.
“There isn’t any massive change,” Mr O’Keeffe insisted. “There are hundreds of similar kids right around that have been integrated into mainstream classes.” He said in many instances, the schools have decided to mainstream the children themselves
It’s interesting to note that numbers enrolled in these classes have fallen. One wonders why this might be. Why would the numbers of special needs children in Ireland decline so suddenly? Perhaps it’s got something to do with the fact that the government is so tardy when it comes to providing educational psychologists to special needs children for assessment. This is unlikely to improve in the future as the government has taken to cutting resources in the assessment area over the past few months which means special needs children will suffer more than they already do in the future. Even when parents pay for independent assessments, the government refuses to acknowledge their validity.
Of course it’s also possible that the reason these classrooms’ numbers have fallen is because while the national numbers of special needs children have remained constant, they’ve been geographically re-distributed. If that were the case, one would expect to see the government opening up new classrooms in different areas of the country. So far, that hasn’t happened.
Once again, Fianna Fail have boxed themselves into a corner. If the needs of these children are best served by placing them in mainstream classrooms with special needs students, then why weren’t these moves carried out last year, or the year before? Was the government wasting our money and harming the children by placing them in separate classrooms?
The reaction from the opposition parties, trade unions and children’s groups has been understandable:
Irish National Teachers Organisation (INTO) general secretary John Carr said he was “shocked” at the “indefensible” decision. “On a day when €8 billion is being provided to bail out banks the Department of Education is axing €7 million in funding to special needs children,” he said. “The decision was made purely on financial grounds.”
The move, which he claimed “came out of the blue without warning or discussion”, has caused further anger amongst INTO members and he called for it to be reversed. Mr Carr said the union will seek a meeting with the Department of Education to discuss the matter.
Fine Gael’s education spokesman Brian Hayes claimed the “unforgivable” move was an “attack” on the most vulnerable pupils in the school system. He said “additional and unsustainable pressure” will be put on existing mainstream classes, which would “inhibit the rights of all children to a decent education”.
Labour’s equality spokeswoman Kathleen Lynch accused the Department of abandoning children with special needs. She said Labour has supported educating children with special needs within the mainstream school system “Ending vital services for these children is inexplicable, but denying them the opportunity to flourish in school is unforgivable,” she said, adding that their classmates would suffer and a further burden would be placed on overstretched mainstream teachers.
Sinn Féin’s education spokesman Senator Pearse Doherty said the cutbacks were “shameful” and “unjustifiable”. He claimed the assertion that the needs of children with special needs can be met in mainstream classrooms was “a lie”.
Barnardos chief executive Fergus Finlay said it was “both unbelievable and unacceptable that, no matter what our economic difficulties might be, we are not making a special effort to protect children who need additional support – and who ought to be entitled to that support as a right.”
Independent MEP Kathy Sinnott warned the Department it may face a legal challenge, arguing that a child’s right to an appropriate education contravenes the Constitution. “If the Government goes ahead with these cuts in the new school term and children find themselves without appropriate education and the right to develop educationally then the Department of Education could once again find themselves in a legal battle.”
Inclusion Ireland argued the cuts were a “retrograde step” that will cost the State more in the long term. The organisation’s chief executive Deirdre Carroll said she was aware of many adults with a mild intellectual disability who were failed by the school system and are now without jobs, education or support from disability services.
Personally, I wouldn’t hold out much hope on a legal challenge. The Department has spent millions fighting the parents of special needs children in the courts, even to the point of claiming that they had not obligation to provide any education for such as children as they could not be educated. O’Keeffe’s move is just another attempt to save a few euro, and by the time any court proceedings ended, O’Keeffe would probably no longer even be minister and the damage would have been done to this generation’s kids with special needs.
The most disturbing aspect of the story at the moment is that it’s not getting the attention it needs in the media. The airwaves and column inches are taken up with talk of recapitalisation, banking scandals and the like. If the reaction to these cuts isn’t strong enough, who knows what else O’Keeffe will try to get away with.
Point proven on language and child abuse… It’s interesting that everyone (blogger included!) committed the crime except for Inclusion Ireland.
http://www.mamanpoulet.com/?p=900
Honestly, I’ve no problem with the term special needs. I’ve met SNTs who refer to themselves as such and if you head over to scoilnet, they’ve a section devoted to special needs teaching. The term is common currency and it’s hard to argue that generally, people who are referred to when we use the term don’t have special needs. Perhaps it might be less loaded to refer to them as children with atypical needs, but I’d wager that any term used would eventually become loaded.
I have to say that I was a little uneasy with the level of attention the opposition tended to give to the impact the inclusion of such children would have on those already in mainstream classrooms.
Well from the disability side of the house there is a big problem with the term and I’m not surprised teachers are still using it – it’s a status symbol.
I do agree with you on the dangers involved in opposition references to impact on full inclusion of the students in mainstream classrooms.
I can see parents not enrolling children in schools which have disabled children with no resource teachers and all sorts of ‘duirt bean liom’ scenarios abounding.
I’ll also wager that lots more children are tried to be admitted to non mainstream schools by their parents who should not be there and the cycle of under and un educating disabled people will continue.
Actually as far as I can gather, being a SNT, or a resources teacher (the terms would be used for very different circumstances) isn’t really seen as being as good as being a ‘real’ teacher. And having worked with children who have special needs (sorry, I really can’t see a better term that doesn’t sound weirdly ) and their parents, I haven’t heard of any of them finding the term offensive. Generally, they’ve got much more pressing issues that concern them.
Whatever the impact on the classroom, I think that if we’re serious about properly integrating those with special needs into the mainstream community, we have to ensure that more typical children learn to interact with such people. It shouldn’t be a case of fixing the neurologically atypical kids so that they can ‘fit in’, rather it should be a situation whereby we teach our kids to accept those who are different for what they are. In that respect, integration into the mainstream classroom is no bad thing, but it doesn’t make sense if the children don’t have the prerequisite skills, which is what seems to be the case here. That’s what you have to love about the DOE – they’re always really lucky in that they always tend to discover that the cheapest option is also the one that’s best for students!
The opposition references to the impact on the mainstream children is, in my opinion, a necessary tactic to get more people, i.e. those parents who do not have a child with special needs, on side with the impact of the changes. It’s all part of building a broad enough coalition of support to try and change things. Wringing your hands, saying isn’t it awful and then relying on the goodwill of the general public has never gotten those with a disability or their families anywhere and well we know it. You have to make the wider world see that it is their problem too.
And Suzy, you’d have some degree of credibility in talking about terms like “special needs” if you weren’t so quite so ready to jump to the defence of people who pride themselves in using more much retrograde terminology. Cop yourself on a bit. And where do you get off suggesting that you’re the person to be speaking from “the disability side of the house” how do you know that Niall doesn’t some direct experience of the problems involved. And there shouldn’t be a “the disability side of the house”, there should just be a house.
Well said Dan.
Questioning my experience as a disabled person, Dan? Bring it on – I base what I’m talking about from my own experience in the disabled peoples movement and not what others might have seen through able bodied glasses or for some sort of political or personal gain. There is a difference in how things are viewed/constructed and agendas are pushed.
There are loads of decision makers, family members and others employed in disability sector who positively thrive on the language and culture of special needs to keep us (disabled people) in our place (while paying lipservice to consultation, political correctness and advocacy), receive sympathy for their heroics as founders, CEO’s, professionals or ‘carers’ and put words in the mouths of disabled people or not even ask us at all.
So that’s where I get off. I’m disabled and reject the wringing of hands, patronisation and automatic assumption that mainstreaming is a perfect goal or outcome (segregation certainly isn’t either), disabled people have a culture and lived experience that can’t be erased by a ramp or a special needs assistant. It’s a culture and experience that can’t be related by the able bodied either due to biases, agendas (yours doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon) and due to imbalances in power we have very little chance to relate it and it seems lots of people want it to remain that way.
(Niall I don’t know anything about you and the above comment is not directly related to what you’ve said- I started out in my own blog post yesterday only looking at linguistc and cultural matters rather than policy and service delivery.
I would love if Ireland Inc would have the time to stop off and look at what disabled and ablebodied people, parents and educators experience and need in education and that recession based panics would not be the way we make or maintain policy in this regard.)
Where is the questioning of your experience as a disabled person, Suzy? I questioned your credibility to talk about terminology and to focus so heavily on it when you’ve supported the use of considerably more retrograde terminology in the past. I’ll get to the detail of that later. I’ve questioned nothing more here than your lack of consistency.
You stated in your response that you, the inference being that this was in contrast to everyone else, were speaking from the disability side of the house. “…what others might have seen through able bodied glasses or for some sort of political or personal gain.” I would greatly dispute your assertion that people who are able bodied have no contribution to make to the discussion, or that their opinions or mine for that matter are for political or personal gain. Your experience of your disability is personal and confined to that which you’ve experienced yourself. There again, since you’ve brought it up why don’t you tell us what specific test it is someone has to pass in order to contribute?
I don’t make any claim to speak exclusively on behalf of people with disabilities; that is the difference between us. I don’t deny you a voice in the way that you seek to deny one to others. Censorship is when people are denied a voice, not when someone voices a different opinion or disagrees with yours. And we all know the people that rush to deny others a voice when dealing with an alternative viewpoint but shout censorship whenever challenged.
As for my supposed agenda I think you need to be more explicit about what it is, because if it is meant to be related to your cheerleading for your mate’s use of the term ‘Retard’ then I thinking you’re on very shaky ground indeed. It’s more than a year since I made a comment in a rational, constructive manner giving my personal opinion to someone and it elicited this as the considered response http://www.mulley.net/2007/12/31/retard/ A response you found no problem at all with. My view at the time was the initial use of the terminology was just something I would not be a fan of and all I did was to say so, the latter usage was done with the deliberate intention to be offensive, but you’re ok with that, you’re down with that, cos it’s cool and the cool kids think it‘s funny! So when it comes to staying onside with the cool people you compromise your principles and stay schtum yet you’re on here making all PC about the use of a term like ‘special needs’ when dealing with the practical consequences of a government that has no problem employing a divide and conquer approach to these cuts. I would humbly suggest that your priorities might warrant a second look. Maybe it was simply that it was coming from a friend, and people can be very myopic when it comes to their friends. I seem to recall the Specials way back in the 80s covered the topic rather well in a track called “Your racist friend” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1DkVljeRfM. If I have any agenda at all it is to try and seek some consistency especially in regard to hypocrisy, nothing more. If that is an agenda then so be it.
Should people when confronted with such a boorish, pig ignorantly deliberately offensive response just ignore it and let it slide because the person has influence and is a bigwig in a particular field? You are evidently suggesting here that they should yet then you are getting in a mighty dander over the term “special needs”, and giving off a vibe that it’s all about ‘a plan by the man’ to keep people down. I’m not sure how to go about quantifying the extent of the double standard you’re applying here but it is pretty damn massive, hence my suggestion that you might cop yourself on. I’m not going to give your pal a bye on this simply because you’ve had a cappuccino together and decided that since it’s not part of your lived experience then that’s ok.
I would point blank state that irrespective of whatever may be the lived experience of your own disability and its impact on your life that you have no experience when it comes to a whole variety of disabilities whether intellectual or physical no more than I do. By your own logic no one can speak if they haven’t lived it. I, however, am not suggesting your lack of understanding of any specific disability should preclude you from expressing an opinion on what the options in this area should be.
You’re the one claiming a position of exclusivity and that your position in the ‘disabled people’s movement’ is what makes you the arbiter of what is right and wrong. I would hold that more can be achieved when people work together but it is ironic that you suggest that the rest of us should shut up and get out of the way while you seek to speak on behalf of people that you don’t actually represent and whose life experience you haven’t demonstrated any direct knowledge of.
Dan,
This is not the place where you get to make those kind of assertions. Suzy was not censoring anyone. Nor is she acting as a proxy for Mulley. If you have problems with him you take them up with him. This is a tough topic, no one is going to deny that, but we leave the personal stuff at the door or head off to other fora to engage in it.
Now that the dust has settled on the spats between people regarding terminology and qualifications to speak on subjects ..can we get back to the subject matter..
As a parent of one of the children with MGLD (Mild General Learning Disability) (is that a more comfortable name?) who will be FULLY integrated into a mainstream class next year, perhaps I can inform some of you as to the situation we find ourselves in.
My son is 11 years of age. He can read and write about a dozen or more words. As he suffers from epilepsy he will probably have forgotten these when he returns to school next year. He suffered from lack of oxygen at birth. He has short-term memory problems.
Children affected by the cutbacks are currently in a class with other children with a MGLD. They are integrated into a mainstream at the moment and have always been integrated as much as possible. But the majority of their time is in their MGLD Special Needs class. During their time in this class they are taught by whatever innovative and appropriate method their teacher’s can.
He will next year be fully integrated into a mainstream class. According to the DOE he will qualify for a max of 4 hours group literacy special class A WEEK next year. I have even questioned that if he were more severally brain damaged he would be better treated by the State. I have also debated this with several politicians but to no avail.
He is already upset about not been able to cope with next year. He cannot sleep and frequently starts crying about it. I do appreciate all children hate change and it is part of growing up. But when one does not know what he is able to cerebrally process regarding change…
Recently his MGLD class; which is to be scrapped, invited all the local politicians to vast it and meet the pupils. They all attended and listened intently. Gave the sound bites for the radio and press reporters and left.
There was lull in communications between the politicians and now closer to the elections the matter has been raised again. Funny that. But of the politicians of had attended the school meeting, Nearly all did not attend the Dail debate on a motion to overturn the cuts. Party politics is alive and well.
Meanwhile I anticipate threading water at best year for our son. Mounting a legal challenge has been mentioned but we all know what amount of money and time that will take. If only I had a pro bono legal team….
Maybe this Facebook page is of interest:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=61234394313