I'm Sorry. It's Another Piece About Special Education News That Is Less Than Ideal.

Before I begin, I promise you I would much rather be writing about something else. I would much rather be writing about a system learning from its mistakes. Alas, once more unto the breach.

Unfortunately, my messages have once again filled with stories from schools that suggest we are heading in the opposite direction.

Since Thursday night, I have been contacted by principals, coordinators, teachers and SNAs from across the country regarding Summer Provision. The level of frustration is palpable. Some schools have received sanction letters. Others are still waiting. It is important to say from the outset that not every school yet knows whether it will be affected by the issues I am about to discuss. However, given the volume of similar concerns emerging from schools that have received decisions, many others would be forgiven for assuming that they may encounter the same difficulties.

The exact details vary from school to school, but the themes are remarkably consistent. Schools are reporting lower levels of staffing than they expected to be sanctioned for Summer Provision, difficulties accessing additional resources, confusion around decision-making and a level of bureaucracy that seems almost designed to slow everything down. Hmmm.

One issue that keeps coming up is the apparent reduction in Teacher and/or SNA support for Summer Provision compared to what children receive during the school year. I have now heard from multiple schools operating special classes where the level of SNA support sanctioned for Summer Provision is below the level available to pupils during term time. Schools with above SERC allocations have reported similar concerns. In some cases, support levels that are considered necessary for ten months of the year suddenly appear to become negotiable for the remaining weeks.

That raises a very obvious question. What exactly changes about a child's needs between June and July? Children who require support on the last day of school generally require support on the first day of Summer Provision too. This is apparently a point lost on the Department.

One school leader told me that they were sanctioned two SNAs per special class group despite operating with three SNAs per class during the school year. Another described having to submit what was effectively a business case in order to secure supports that already exist in their school and have already been deemed necessary through NCSE processes.

The most frustrating part is that this is all happening at exactly the point in the year when schools should be focused on delivering programmes for children. Instead, many appear to be focused on appeals, spreadsheets, business cases and trying to understand decisions that nobody seems able to explain.

I keep coming back to that phrase: a business case. A business (shudder) case for supports that have already been assessed, already been sanctioned and already been deemed necessary for children with complex needs.

Unsurprisingly, schools are appealing. Equally unsurprisingly, the appeals system appears to be struggling under the volume. One principal described submitting an appeal immediately after receiving sanction details and attaching the school's NCSE allocation letter. When they followed up, they were told that managers were reviewing appeals on a case-by-case basis and had been inundated since sanction emails had issued. No timeframe could be given for a response.

Think about the practical implications of that.

Schools are trying to recruit staff for this happening in three weeks time. They are trying to finalise groups. They are communicating with parents. They are organising transport, timetables and resources. Yet many are doing so without knowing whether they will actually receive the staffing they believe is necessary to run programmes safely.

Once again, the burden of making an imperfect system work falls squarely on schools.

Then there is the issue of the additional paperwork required to access further resourcing. Several schools have contacted me regarding requests for spreadsheets containing children's names, dates of birth and eligibility criteria. As I understand it, these spreadsheets are being submitted via email as part of applications for additional supports. They are being asked to password protect them using a single generic password supplied to the entire country. Oh, dear. My GDPR compliant pals, look away!

Now, perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this process. Perhaps there are safeguards that schools have not yet been informed about. However, it is difficult not to notice the contrast with other Department processes. For SNA reviews, schools are required to obtain signed parental consent and submit coded information rather than identifiable pupil details. For NEPS processes, consent forms are carefully managed and significant attention is paid to minimising identifiable information. Yet here, schools are being asked to email personally identifiable data in order to access supports. At the very least, schools deserve a clear explanation of how this process aligns with the standards they are expected to uphold elsewhere.

The issue that generated the strongest reaction in my DMs, however, relates to DEIS Summer Camps.

Over the past 24 hours, I have received messages from schools expressing concern that SNA support is not available at all within the DEIS Summer Camp programme.

If that interpretation is correct, the consequences are obvious. Schools report being advised that children requiring SNA support may be better suited to SEN Summer Provision. Others have interpreted the guidance as meaning that pupils requiring SNA support cannot realistically be offered places within DEIS Summer Camps. The practical reality is that schools are finding themselves in an impossible position. Teachers have told me they cannot select pupils who require SNA support. Some schools have suggested limiting numbers. Others are looking at whether parent volunteers may be required to make programmes viable. A number have questioned whether they can run programmes at all.

One message I received simply said:

"We can't offer a place to children with additional needs in our school." I have thought about that sentence repeatedly since reading it. Because whatever explanation exists at policy level, that is the message some schools feel they are being forced to deliver.

We spend a great deal of time talking about inclusion in Irish education. We talk about belonging. We talk about participation. We talk about removing barriers. We talk about ensuring that children can access the same opportunities as their peers. Yet if schools genuinely feel that children who require SNA support are effectively excluded from parts of Summer Provision, then there is a serious contradiction between the language and the reality.

Perhaps there are explanations.

Perhaps there are clarifications coming.

Perhaps there are solutions already being worked on.

I sincerely hope so.

What I am hearing from schools right now is not the story of a system making participation easier.

It is the story of a system making participation harder.

And the people left carrying the consequences are the same people who always carry them: school leaders trying to make impossible decisions, staff trying to provide programmes with inadequate information and families desperately hoping that the supports their children rely upon will still be there when summer begins.

P.S. One final point on my previous post that has not received nearly enough attention. Under the new SNA arrangements, mainstream SNA allocations now appear to be more substantially protected than some above SERC supports. Schools can find themselves having to repeatedly justify and defend above SERC allocations through annual review processes despite those supports having already been identified as necessary. I have to say, I find that extraordinary. If a child's needs have not changed, why should schools and families be forced back into the same argument every year or two? Of all the supports in the system, surely those attached to the most complex needs should be the most secure, not the least?