SNA's - should we have them?

tomcollins97

I have been reading lots in the papers recently about education cut-backs and the knock on effect on special needs students. In particular, details regarding the provision of SNA’s. In one article in the Irish Daily mail last week and child with Down Syndrome is attending a school where she has her own SNA. Her parents are happy that she is integrating with her peers and are fearful that some day the cut-backs may affect their daughter. This has got me thinking…

Take a child of above average intelligence who is in a regular primary school in a class of say, 34. The child will do well but possibly not achieve their full potential. What would happen to bright kids if they were given one-on-one tuition? It is right to spend vast amounts of money on teaching special needs children, who, with the best will in the world, can only achieve so much? Should there not be some focus on identifying the bright kids who could benefit hugely from on-to-one teaching and who will potentially go on to contribute financially and intellectually to society?

This is a dodgy territory I know, but in the current economic climate I think we need to look at where money is being spent?

anoisaris

tomcollins97 wrote: »

I have been reading lots in the papers recently about education cut-backs and the knock on effect on special needs students. In particular, details regarding the provision of SNA’s. In one article in the Irish Daily mail last week and child with Down Syndrome is attending a school where she has her own SNA. Her parents are happy that she is integrating with her peers and are fearful that some day the cut-backs may affect their daughter. This has got me thinking…

Take a child of above average intelligence who is in a regular primary school in a class of say, 34. The child will do well but possibly not achieve their full potential. What would happen to bright kids if they were given one-on-one tuition? It is right to spend vast amounts of money on teaching special needs children, who, with the best will in the world, can only achieve so much? Should there not be some focus on identifying the bright kids who could benefit hugely from on-to-one teaching and who will potentially go on to contribute financially and intellectually to society?

This is a dodgy territory I know, but in the current economic climate I think we need to look at where money is being spent?

Actually gifted is considered special needs also!
So wouldn't a gifted child be allocated learning support hours ?

It's disgraceful to use "the current climate" as another excuse for ignorance. Does integration of a pupil with special needs not contribute to society?

spurious

The thought of treating a child less favourably because she 'can only achieve so much' would go against everything I have ever done or will do in my career.

ulysses32

I think what it is being referred to above is the good old days of Darwinianism. "Invest in the best and f*** the rest" kind of thinking. The last time this was trialed we got World War II.

'Exceptionally able' is a category of SEN however it is not addressed specifically in EPSEN. Exceptionally able students can be catered for under the learning support guidelines however it is the natural instinct of teachers to look after those most in need and rightly so.

The universities are already scouring the country for "excellence" (whatever that means). Who is exceptionally able, how do you measure it? What do you expect to gain by singling such a child out for extra attention?

Are you suggesting we make an enterprise of the "exceptionally able" child by tapping into their talent at what might be at the expense of their normal youthful development?

dublintuition

Screw this 'can only achieve so much' attitude. What about Helen Keller? It's that attitude that has Ireland so far behind the times in special educational provision.

And not to go off the original topic, but say you replace your DS student with one with ADHD. How is the teacher supposed to teach a class of 33 students who are, as you seem to imply, 'more worth the effort' when there is one student running mad around the room because there is no SNA there to assist the teacher.

No offence, but you obviously don't have much experience with special needs, otherwise you would understand how invaluable they are to a teacher.

RandomIrl

tomcollins97 wrote: »

It is right to spend vast amounts of money on teaching special needs children, who, with the best will in the world, can only achieve so much?

it has been proven that these children that can only achieve so much can have outstanding intelligences in certain areas.. how very narrow minded of you!!

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

ulysses32

Point taken. You make a very strong and convincing argument

Would just be fearful in our current predicament that the scavenger hunt for "entrepreneurship" and "ability" will become a panic reaction to a faltering economy, resulting in situations like in the US where twelve year olds are doing college degrees and being accelarated into adult life, especially work.

I agree also with your SEN philosophy, however I would question the child with dyslexia argument. I am sure the percentage of kids with dyslexia who are exceptionally able is not above that of everybody else; it is probably the same. Sometimes there is this myth that a child with dyslexia will definitely be exceptional in some other area; this is not the case.

Take any other area of intelligence, outside the linguistic sphere. I am sure many of us display difficulties in one area or another. It just happens that linguistic intelligence, and to a lesser extent mathematical intelligence, dominates curricula, particularly at second level.

claire h

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Take a child of above average intelligence who is in a regular primary school in a class of say, 34. The child will do well but possibly not achieve their full potential. What would happen to bright kids if they were given one-on-one tuition? It is right to spend vast amounts of money on teaching special needs children, who, with the best will in the world, can only achieve so much? Should there not be some focus on identifying the bright kids who could benefit hugely from on-to-one teaching and who will potentially go on to contribute financially and intellectually to society?

This is a dodgy territory I know, but in the current economic climate I think we need to look at where money is being spent?

That's incredibly dodgy territory. I'm an advocate of gifted education, but certainly not at the expense of kids at the bottom of the ability spectrum.

It also assumes that one-on-one tuition is the only option which can facilitate educational development - not the case. Allowing gifted kids go off and do independent work, or work in groups with those of a similar ability, with some checking in with a mentor at regular intervals, would be more beneficial.

What a SNA is supposed to do, as I understand it, is to assist a kid with special needs to be able to work within the regular classroom environment. Whether 'being able to work within the regular classroom environment' is an appropriate goal for certain students, or whether a SNA is necessary in order to allow a student to do that, seem to be more important questions to ask.

In an ideal world there would be a classroom environment which would facilitate each student working at his or her own pace and using his or her own specific learning style... but we are very very very far away from that.

E.T.

TomCollins - SNAs aren't allocated for any educational needs whatsoever - the Department are extremely strict on this. SNAs are allocated on grounds such as the child being a danger to themselves or others, physical needs (eg toilet needs, wheelchair assistance and other mobility assistance), and any other non-educational needs to help the child access the curriculum. I've taught a lot of children with a variety of special needs, and I've worked with many SNAs, without whom some children just couldn't have managed. SNAs help children with special needs access the curriculum to a level which just wouldn't happen without this extra adult in the room.

Money spent on SNAs isn't specifically going towards "teaching" children with special needs. Some children with special needs will be allocated hours with resource teachers -I think this may be more what your argument is about. Unfortunately, the department already works with the thinking that it isn't "right to spend vast amounts of money on teaching special needs children, who, with the best will in the world, can only achieve so much" in a lot of cases. If a child has a low IQ and other special needs such as language problems, then they may not be entitled to any resource hours as the department has decided that these children won't benefit from extra help due to their low IQ. They might receive learning support but unfortunately if the learning support/resource teacher's hours are already full with resource hours then they won't.

Claire h - I hope this answered your question about the suitability of expecting certain children to work within the regular classroom environment. If a lot of these children didn't have an SNA then they just wouldn't be able to take part in the class at any practical level. Even the best teacher can't fully teach some of these children (without an SNA) without neglecting the other children in the class because of the extra time involved. If these children are to go through the school system without any understanding, how can we expect them to progress into the workplace? Enabling them to access to some extent the same curriculum as other children helps to give a sense of confidence and belonging.

With regard to an SNA being necessary - there's been a huge review of SNA allocation by the Department this year - from my own experience in school, I can't see how there are any SNAs in Ireland who aren't necessary. We have to provide psychologists'/Occupational Therapists' etc reports which state that the child NEEDS an SNA. Reports that say "this child would benefit from the assistance of an SNA" won't even do. Teachers' opinions don't have anything to do with a child being allocated an SNA.

byhookorbycrook

Actually, learning suppport guidelines are very old and outmoded. Exceptionally able children will need help too and under the guidelines only children scoring on the 10th percentile in literacy or maths would be entitiled to support.
I take a group of exceptionally able children and it challenges me as a teacher and benefits them too (I hope). Exceptionally able children often hide their ability in the mainstream room, they deserve support to help them fulfill their potential.

nicola09

This is slightly off topic but perhaps some teachers could shed some light on it. How come primary school classes aren't streamed e.g by using the results from tests such as the Micra-T and such? Maybe this isn't the case in every primary school but in the one I went to, practically every class is split into two and then combined with half of the class from the next year (half of 2nd class and half of 3rd, for example). Surely it would make more sense to keep children of (and I loathe to use this expression) "similar ability" together? After all, once they reach secondary school this is what happens! Would this not alleviate the problem of the more academic children not recieving enough attention, without compromising the needs of children who require a bit of extra help from the teacher? I'm not suggesting the alienation of the (again I don't mean to cause offence whan I say this) less intelligent students but surely the more intelligent ones would be much better off working at a faster pace or doing more difficult work that they are more than capable of undertaking?

PullOutMethod

The child with special needs must be able to derive substantial benefit from the education.
I agree with Mary Hanafin's response to that baboon Kathy Sinnott.
Sinnott was demanding a high maintenance program (from the US I believe) for all children with autism because it had been proven that the children "benefit".
Hanafin's point was that if you spent this money and after 12 years the child has benefitted by merely being able to pick up a ball then the limited resources could be spent better elsewhere.
I know it is cruel, but given a limited budget it is about return on investment and not about providing daycare for the parents of children with special needs (Kathy Sinnott included)
However the program should indeed be there for children that will benefit substantially.
That's the key as everyone benefits including society.

spurious

The big push now is for mixed ability. The DES use this as an excuse to put kids that were in special groups* together and to do away with jobs.

There is of course a body of study that shows mixed ability is the way to go. That's mixed ability where you have kids at reading ages of maybe 11-13 in the one class. It might work then, but I have Junior Cert. classes where the students' reading ages range from 7 to 13. That's not mixed ability, that's impossible.

*I'm not talking about special needs here - these would be what we used to call 'remedial' groups. They would be kept in small groups for help with socialisation and a great deal of other skills where there is a deficit - often due to poor parenting. They are the kids who do not do the JC, let alone the LC.