Eamon Gilmore thinks it's "reasonable" to target Special needs students?

Banjo String

I seriously couldnt believe my ears today when I heard this on the radio.

There were heated exchanges and persistent heckling in the Dáil today when Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore told the House there were no cuts in the allocation of resources for children with special needs.


Mr Gilmore said changing how the resources were best used for those in need was “reasonable”.


Fianna Fáil education spokesman Charlie McConalogue accused the Government of targeting its drive for savings in education at “the most vulnerable children in our education system”.


The Donegal North-East TD raised the issue following yesterday’s announcement by the National Council for Special Education of a cut in teaching hours from September for children with special needs.
Mr McConalogue said children with special needs faced a 10 per cent cut in resource teaching hours and most children would lose half an hour of resource teaching, while many would lose their allocation.


“Why are children with special needs not being treated in the same way as children in mainstream education by hiring extra resource teachers and special needs assistants to ensure they do not have to endure cuts?” he asked.

<mod snip>

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/gilmore-stance-on-special-needs-resources-raises-hackles-1.1436664

As someone with an immediate family member with special needs, I think Eamon should hang his head in shame.

What next? Target ethnic minority kids?

They have essentially disregarded the Proclamation’s pledge to cherish all the children of the nation equally.

The sooner Eamon is resigned to the history books the better.

What exactly is he targetting if there were no cuts?

danger mouse

SamHall wrote: »

I seriously couldnt believe my ears today when I heard this on the radio.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/gilmore-stance-on-special-needs-resources-raises-hackles-1.1436664

As someone with an immediate family member with special needs, I think Eamon should hang his head in shame.

What next? Target ethnic minority kids?

They have essentially disregarded the Proclamation’s pledge to cherish all the children of the nation equally.

The sooner Eamon is resigned to the history books the better.

Yeah Eamon what is my brother and his wife going to do with their autistic child who is only in senior infants bring him home early everyday, away from his class mates and teacher? Or lock him in a room on his own for 1 hour a day...Good man yourself

fuerte1976

How Gilmore is even still around after the famous 'Labour's way or Frankfurt's way' is beyond me.
A spoofer if there ever was one, And I would lean slightly towards Labour.
He's been accused of waffling too @ the G8.
No more Labour for me.....I tell you.

Banjo String

bluewolf wrote: »

What exactly is he targetting if there were no cuts?

a cut in teaching hours from September for children with special needs.
Mr McConalogue said children with special needs faced a 10 per cent cut in resource teaching hours and most children would lose half an hour of resource teaching, while many would lose their allocation.

Thats reasonable Eamon?

If cuts need to be made, why target students with special needs? What makes them a better target than 'normal' students?

Amirani

Stupid argument is stupid. You can accuse a minister of unfairly targeting special needs students because they don't spend 80% of our education budget on them. What matters is whether an appropriate level of education is being provided to special needs students. From my experience of briefly working as an SNA, I never witnessed anything contrary to that.

Amirani

SamHall wrote: »

Thats reasonable Eamon?

If cuts need to be made, why target students with special needs? What makes them a better target than 'normal' students?

Have 'normal' students not faced cuts also? Some selective memory it seems.

danger mouse

NiallSparky wrote: »

Stupid argument is stupid. You can accuse a minister of unfairly targeting special needs students because they don't spend 80% of our education budget on them. What matters is whether an appropriate level of education is being provided to special needs students. From my experience of briefly working as an SNA, I never witnessed anything contrary to that.

Right so you go back and work with a difficult child after the cuts come in and see how that pans out for you?

oppenheimer1

SamHall wrote: »

Thats reasonable Eamon?

If cuts need to be made, why target students with special needs? What makes them a better target than 'normal' students?

They would be seen as an easier cut than targetting mainstream students because of the relatively high spend per student.

I'm guessing they're targetting these areas as it will be a high yield saving and affect the smallest number of students. Not fair of course but easier politically due to the small numbers affected.

Banjo String

NiallSparky wrote: »

Have 'normal' students not faced cuts also? Some selective memory it seems.

This will result in some special needs students having to be taken out of some mainstream education facilities as a result of this "reasonable" decison.

So to answer your question, yes they have, but those with special needs in a mainstream school for example face further cuts.

Is that fair?

byhookorbycrook

bluewolf wrote: »

What exactly is he targetting if there were no cuts?

Resource hours have been cut by 25% in the last three years. Many child now get "access" to an SNA which means the SNA is expected to be in three places at the one time.

The spin says levels are maintained, but the truth is that the same amount of resources are expected to cater for an increase of 10% of children with SEN.

This is not just an SEN issue, if there is a class of 30 with two children with SEN, no SNA and reduced resource teaching, the class teacher has to try to cater for this on top of teaching the entire class of 30 as well.

SEN children have been targeted because there are less of them, but this impacts on every single child, which the DES hope parents/voters won't cop.

cletus van damme

NiallSparky wrote: »

Have 'normal' students not faced cuts also? Some selective memory it seems.

it's kinda irrelevant, the more vulnerable are entitled to more care by virtue of their need.

'normal' students as you put it could probably better cope with a cut as opposed to students with special needs who (some) are only in mainstream schooling due to the extra assistance.
It should be the case that as many kids as possible go through mainstream schooling.

as with all cuts - those that can take the pain easier should absorb more.

NiallSparky wrote: »

Stupid argument is stupid. You can accuse a minister of unfairly targeting special needs students because they don't spend 80% of our education budget on them. What matters is whether an appropriate level of education is being provided to special needs students. From my experience of briefly working as an SNA, I never witnessed anything contrary to that.

this is incorrect - you give an example of your experience where the need was met.
I can tell you that during the boom times the need wasn't met so it's pretty ****ty now and the appropriate need is not been given in many cases.

Sergeant

An emotive and politically-charged attack against one of the most genuine and passionate Social Democrats in the Dail. You'd think that Gilmore, Quinn and Burton arrive into their office everyday to make decisions that rile people.

Big auld brass neck on a FF head to be going on about the 'vunerable'. Good to see the SF deputy recite the 1916 constitution though. Passionate stuff I'm sure.

Amirani

SamHall wrote: »

This will result in some special needs students having to be taken out of some mainstream education facilities as a result of this "reasonable" decison.

So to answer your question, yes they have, but those with special needs in a mainstream school for example face further cuts.

Is that fair?

You'll rarely find cuts in Government spending that are considered fair.

My point on the matter is simply that we should be taking a broader look at the levels of education being provided to kids with special needs, and then criticise them if necessary. Criticising just because there's cuts is silly. In some respects the provision of special needs at present is completely inadequate and inefficient.

From my time in the area, I've seen schools that are both heavily overstaffed and woefully understaffed in the SNA area. This is something that needs to be addressed.

SamHall

SamHall wrote: »

Thats reasonable Eamon?

If cuts need to be made, why target students with special needs? What makes them a better target than 'normal' students?

Right, because the budget was being allocated in a way they decided would be more effective, its first review in 20 years. The budget is the same. Not the cuts. Maybe we should find out exactly what's happening before screaming about targetting?

Amirani

cletus van damme wrote: »

it's kinda irrelevant, the more vulnerable are entitled to more care by virtue of their need.

'normal' students as you put it could probably better cope with a cut as opposed to students with special needs who (some) are only in mainstream schooling due to the extra assistance.
It should be the case that as many kids as possible go through mainstream schooling.

as with all cuts - those that can take the pain easier should absorb more.

See, it's all relative. The more vunerable are entitled to more care of course, but how much extra care? 20%? 50%? 100%?

Normal students can cope better with a cut, but to what extent? Do you continue to cut mainstream education spending without touching special needs education. If you do, a point will be reached at which 'normal' students can't cope better with cuts.

Talking in general terms about cuts, without seeing figures and specific focuses of cuts is useless.

byhookorbycrook

Parents were encouraged to remove children from special schools and mainstream them in their community, this flies in the face of inclusion ,socially and educationally.

Amirani

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Parents were encouraged to remove children from special schools and mainstream them in their community, this flies in the face of inclusion ,socially and educationally.

How exactly does integrating special needs students into mainstream schools fly in the face of social or educational inclusion?

byhookorbycrook

By "this" I mean the cuts.

danger mouse

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Resource hours have been cut by 25% in the last three years. Many child now get "access" to an SNA which means the SNA is expected to be in three places at the one time.

The spin says levels are maintained, but the truth is that the same amount of resources are expected to cater for an increase of 10% of children with SEN.

This is not just an SEN issue, if there is a class of 30 with two children with SEN, no SNA and reduced resource teaching, the class teacher has to try to cater for this on top of teaching the entire class of 30 as well.

SEN children have been targeted because there are less of them, but this impacts on every single child, which the DES hope parents/voters won't cop.

Sure as far as I know if because of this cut some children will end up being pressured out of mainstream school due to lack of resources, because of unattainable SNA staffing levels. These children will end up in "special schools" making it more expensive for the HSE in the long run. Defeating the purpose of short term gains in costs.

The whole thing stinks of the people in power not seeing the bigger picture and going for the soft easy cut for the short term and forgetting about the long term ramifications which in time will be a lot more costly to the exchequer.

Amirani

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

By "this" I mean the cuts.

Apologies for the misinterpretation.

cletus van damme

NiallSparky wrote: »

See, it's all relative. The more vunerable are entitled to more care of course, but how much extra care? 20%? 50%? 100%?

Normal students can cope better with a cut, but to what extent? Do you continue to cut mainstream education spending without touching special needs education. If you do, a point will be reached at which 'normal' students can't cope better with cuts.

Talking in general terms about cuts, without seeing figures and specific focuses of cuts is useless.

i see your point but to say that to provide for special needs within education will take from the normal kids is not accurate.
The money the government goes into a pot it's allocated accordingly.

Their allocation is at fault here. Hitting the vulnerable should be a last resort.
We should close every quango and lay off all advisers before hitting kids education (there are others I'd add to that list but that's for another day)
As nice as the arts council is - I'd prefer that money was assigned to kids with special needs.
That's just one quango.

by your logic we cut could the services to seriously ill people in hospital so as not to disadvantage the less ill?
Sounds mad to me.

Banjo String

Sergeant wrote: »

An emotive and politically-charged attack against one of the most genuine and passionate Social Democrats in the Dail.

You do realise this thread is about Eamon Gilmore....... right?

Midnight Sundance

If they actually listened to teachers and asked where cuts could happen they might see savings !!
I personally would rather see money go into SEN and resource hours as opposed to the thousands spent every week on providing lunches to the children in my school. Multiply that by every DEIS school and there's your extra money.
( I do support the school lunch scheme but when faced with losing hours for the most vulnerable children or lunches that half them won't eat, then the hours win every time!!)

Sergeant

SamHall wrote: »

You do realise this thread is about Eamon Gilmore....... right?

Yes; because I'd rather have my social democrats sit in Government, and make difficult decisions based on economic reality and pragmatism.

This is a fine and competent Government. It's an honour to have intellectuals like Quinn and Shatter sit at Cabinet. Truly reforming.

Banjo String

Sergeant wrote: »

Yes; because I'd rather have my social democrats sit in Government, and make difficult decisions based on economic reality and pragmatism.

This is a fine and competent Government. It's an honour to have intellectuals like Quinn and Shatter sit at Cabinet. Truly reforming.

Now I know you're messing.

danger mouse

Sergeant wrote: »

Yes; because I'd rather have my social democrats sit in Government, and make difficult decisions based on economic reality and pragmatism.

This is a fine and competent Government. It's an honour to have intellectuals like Quinn and Shatter sit at Cabinet. Truly reforming.

I hope this is a troll!?!?!

Sergeant

SamHall wrote: »

Now I know you're messing.

About what? Why didn't you post the entire speech when opening the thread? It's a grand use of editing.

StewartGriffin

Just on Newstalk that the teachers have offered to give up a half hour per week of their pay in order to fund a reinstatement of these much needed SNA's!!!

This is the kind of thing that restores faith in humanity. Proud to be Irish today.

tayto lover

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Just on Newstalk that the teachers have offered to give up a half hour per week of their pay in order to fund a reinstatement of these much needed SNA's!!!

This is the kind of thing that restores faith in humanity. Proud to be Irish today.

Proud of the teachers but not of the self-servers who are supposedly running the country.

Banjo String

Sergeant wrote: »

About what?

Where to begin.......

Describing Gilmore as 'genuine' .........

Describing shatter as an intellectual?

Shatter, who was forced to apologise to Mick Wallace of all people due to his unprofessional outburst?

This was then followed up by shatter being exposed as refusing to give a breath sample?

Reformed my arse.

Sergeant wrote: »

Why didn't you post the entire speech when opening the thread? It's a grand use of editing.

What speech?

I copied from an article, the link to which I included?

Zebra3

Sergeant wrote: »

An emotive and politically-charged attack against one of the most genuine and passionate Social Democrats in the Dail.

Don't insult our intelligence with bs like that.

Gilmore sold his soul (if he had one) to get into power. He is nothing more now than a lackey for the elite ensuring they get back their gambling losses at the expense of the Irish people.

Have a look at the pictures in the book "The Lost Revolution-The Story of the Workers Party" and there's Gilmore at a Communist Youth jamboree in Havana.

Eamon, you've come along way baby.

You and your party will be wiped out at the next general election.

Hope the Mercs and perks were worth it.

NuckingFacker

Sergeant wrote: »

An emotive and politically-charged attack against one of the most genuine and passionate Social Democrats in the Dail. You'd think that Gilmore, Quinn and Burton arrive into their office everyday to make decisions that rile people.

Big auld brass neck on a FF head to be going on about the 'vunerable'. Good to see the SF deputy recite the 1916 constitution though. Passionate stuff I'm sure.

This has to be viewed through the filter of Sergeant being a member of FG. Not exactly a detatched opinion. As far as my own opinion goes, I believe eamon Gilmore makes some very smooth noises, he certainly does his best to talk the talk, sadly he fails to walk the walk.

The day he emerged from opposition must have been the worst moment in his life. I genuinely believe he went home and held his head in his hands. Left there in opposition, dispensing meaningless soundbites, he could have waffled his way through to retirement with his usual smooth, somwhat hypocritical penache. Thrust into actual power, his lack of any real conviction is blatently apparent. Both FG and Labour make great hurlers on the ditch. Sadly, they are absolutely brutal when actually on the pitch. I relish the day when Joe Higgins gets booted to the fore with the instruction "go on so..." That will end his career as well.

BTW, a Mayo friend was telling me yesterday that Kenny is currently utterly shunned and rejected in his home-town. Good enough for him.

martic

Today's Leaders questions for anyone interested

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXKzhp3XrrE

Sergeant

Zebra3 wrote: »

Don't insult our intelligence with bs like that.

Gilmore sold his soul (if he had one) to get into power. He is nothing more now than a lackey for the elite ensuring they get back their gambling losses at the expense of the Irish people.

Have a look at the pictures in the book "The Lost Revolution-The Story of the Workers Party" and there's Gilmore at a Communist Youth jamboree in Havana.

Eamon, you've come along way baby.

You and your party will be wiped out at the next general election.

Hope the Mercs and perks were worth it.

Really enjoyed that book as it happens. It's wonderful to see how the pragmatists and realists decided to become social democrats. They will leave a legacy. No smoke without fire for some of them, but at least they make no bones about it.

The loony side of the movement ended up printing pamphlets that about 5 people read. And meeting in Barry's Hotel. At least they had a couple of goons in balaclavas fire a round over their grave when they died as proud comrades of Ireland.

EoghanIRL

I watched the entire thing today . I am not a fan of labour or eamon Gilmore but it seems people in this thread have a selective memory and are including only the facts that support their arguments . The so called normal students get cuts too . There are no cuts to the 1.3 billion euros spent on special needs assisted education each year . There is only a 12 per cent reduction in working hours for the assistants . The number of assistants is increasing and there is a 60 per cent increase in the amount of money spent on special education since 2007 which was the heights of the economic boom.

At the Bottom line , cuts need to be made in education . If you don't make this cut , then where do you suggests the cuts should be made ? If make cuts directed at the so called normal students people will also complain since all students have equal rights . Hard decisions have to be made and they are not going to make everyone happy.

Banjo String

Sergeant wrote: »

Really enjoyed that book as it happens. It's wonderful to see how the pragmatists and realists decided to become social democrats. They will leave a legacy No smoke without fire for some of them, but at least they make no bones about it.

Eamons 'legacy' will be the annihilation of his party in the local, then general elections.

He's abandoned every grass root principle he.and the Labour party supposedly stood for. Larkin will be spinning inn his grave.

Certainly not what I'd choose to be remembered by.

danger mouse

SamHall wrote: »

Eamons 'legacy' will be the annihilation of his party in the local, then general elections.
Certainly not what I'd choose to be remembered by.

Well I hope he reads this as there is about 20 of us in the 1 family in different constitutions across the country that will never vote labour again because of this.

FoxT

He highlighted the 1916 Proclamation’s pledge to cherish all the children of the nation equally

This blows a hole in the 'special needs' argument. If all children are being cherished equally, then children with 'special needs' should surely be treated the same as others?

It also misses another important point. Schools cater for the mainstream. Those who are gifted, and also those who are handicapped, are failed to some extent. Both gifted and handicapped children have special needs, if they are to meet their potential.

I somewhat resent the term 'Special Needs'. It has been misappropriated to apply only to those children who have learning or behavioural difficulties, and excludes those at the other end of the spectrum, who are equally as valuable.

-FoxT

mikom

SamHall wrote: »

As someone with an immediate family member with special needs, I think Eamon should hang his head in shame.

What next? Target ethnic minority kids?

They have essentially disregarded the Proclamation’s pledge to cherish all the children of the nation equally.

The sooner Eamon is resigned to the history books the better.

Ah, Eamon and the Missus cherish all the children.......... shur didn't they sell a two-and-a-half acre field to them for €525,000.

THE wife of Labour leader Eamon Gilmore was paid €525,000 by the Department of Education for a site for a new school that is now worth less than €100,000.

Educationalist Carol Hanney, who is chief executive of Dun Laoghaire VEC, sold the two-and-a-half acre site she inherited from her late mother to the Office of Public Works on behalf of the Department of Education.

"Education is something we have to see as an investment," Mr Gilmore told RTE Radio.

His own deputy leader -- finance spokeswoman Joan Burton -- last year hit out at "property tycoons" who made "a mountain of money" from selling school sites.

And it emerged yesterday that the site -- located on the Loughrea side of Killimor village -- was not even the preferred initial location for the national school.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gilmore-wife-got-525000-for-school-site-now-worth-just-100000-26695748.html

Sergeant wrote: »

Yes; because I'd rather have my social democrats sit in Government, and make difficult decisions based on economic reality and pragmatism.

This is a fine and competent Government. It's an honour to have intellectuals like Quinn and Shatter sit at Cabinet. Truly reforming.

Trolololol

Scruffles

FoxT wrote: »

I somewhat resent the term 'Special Needs'. It has been misappropriated to apply only to those children who have learning or behavioural difficulties, and excludes those at the other end of the spectrum, who are equally as valuable.

-FoxT

have personaly seen special needs being recognised as also including kids who are under the label of gifted often from various countries as have used a lot of disability forums/fb groups, gifted children and LD childen are worth as much as other,the amount of money one group gets shoud never imply more worth, but in the case of LD there likely needs to be more money due to the need for many group & one to one [higher in some students cases] support assistants and regular training on behavioral management, disabilities, restraining, communication alternatives etc, whereas with gifted children,the teachers woud need training knowing how to work with the particular group and the costs of tougher work but am guessing it woud be no way near close to the costs of the LD group.

'special needs' as a label has thankfuly been on its way out for a while anyway,many people in the disability community prefer to use the term 'additional needs', it means what it says and lacks the connotations and utter patronisation of 'special' needs,plus gifted kids woud probably find people judging them a lot less for being under this label.

fishy fishy

i can't really comment fairly on this because every time I see that gilmore person I want to throw up. he is the most uncharasmatic, robotic, uncomfortable, boring, non-believable irish politician I ever had the misfortune to lay eyes on. Wouldn't believe a word out of his mouth.

As for Labour in general - a lost cause.

but on the bright side - sure isn't the jfk flame in ireland now - shure will ye stop complaining.

Yitzhak Rabin

There have to be cuts! Thats the reality. The amount of resources pumped into special needs since the early 2000's is massive. A 10% reduction in hours comes on the back of a massive increase in spending in the area over the past decade.

One of the posters was asking earlier how a teacher is supposed to teach a class of 30 with only one SNA.... eh, maybe like it was done when I was in school, when there was no such thing as SNAs.

Sergeant

SamHall wrote: »

Larkin will be spinning inn his grave.

Jesus, is every Irish 'martyr' and socialist spinning in his grave? Pearse, Connolly, Larkin must be getting tired of all this spinning they have to do.

fishy fishy

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

There have to be cuts! Thats the reality. The amount of resources pumped into special needs since the early 2000's is massive. A 10% reduction in hours comes on the back of a massive increase in spending in the area over the past decade.

One of the posters was asking earlier how a teacher is supposed to teach a class of 30 with only one SNA.... eh, maybe like it was done when I was in school, when there was no such thing as SNAs.

okay frank mccourt

Knine

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

There have to be cuts! Thats the reality. The amount of resources pumped into special needs since the early 2000's is massive. A 10% reduction in hours comes on the back of a massive increase in spending in the area over the past decade.

One of the posters was asking earlier how a teacher is supposed to teach a class of 30 with only one SNA.... eh, maybe like it was done when I was in school, when there was no such thing as SNAs.

Yeah there was no such thing as SNA's & kids with special needs were locked away.

Now let me see, recalling the last budget we had cuts to respite grant, cuts to home care package, increases in medical costs, cuts to ESB, telephone allowance, housing cuts..........

The most vulnerable in society is taking the brunt of the cuts and that says a lot about us as a society.

Banjo String

Sergeant wrote: »

Jesus, is every Irish 'martyr' and socialist spinning in his grave? Pearse, Connolly, Larkin must be getting tired of all this spinning they have to do.

After your description of Gilmore and shatter, you'll understand that I take your judgment of character with a pinch of salt.

Banjo String

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

There have to be cuts! Thats the reality. The amount of resources pumped into special needs since the early 2000's is massive. A 10% reduction in hours comes on the back of a massive increase in spending in the area over the past decade.

One of the posters was asking earlier how a teacher is supposed to teach a class of 30 with only one SNA.... eh, maybe like it was done when I was in school, when there was no such thing as SNAs.

Jesus wept.

Went to school in the bare feet I bet, had to walk 6 miles uphill in both directions?
Got up so early it was still the day before?

Were those three days when a child with special needs was merely considered 'odd' or 'a bit slow' sent off to remedial class to paint pictures?

allibastor

Labor are the biggest joke of a party going if ever there was one. They seem to have no real grasp on reality at all. Eamon Gilmore i dont think has ever worked a real job in his life. they seem to view things as just figures that are dreamed up by someone in a civil job.

I laugh eveytime labor come out with something new, I mean Joan Burton cutting back to education for people during summer as they shoudl be able to find a jon with ease, yeah cause the other 420k people on the dole are only dossing there. Eamon Gilmore should be run out, as should Fat Pat Rabbitte

Yitzhak Rabin

SamHall wrote: »

Jesus wept.

Went to school in the bare feet I bet, had to walk 6 miles uphill in both directions?
Got up so early it was still the day before?

Were those three days when a child with special needs was merely considered 'odd' or 'a bit slow' sent off to remedial class to paint pictures?

No, I was driven to school by our houskeeper most mornings, and walked during the good weather, but it was only about half a mile.

My opinion is that for the input that is put into SN Education, the output doesn't always justify it. Huge resources can be poured into the area, and often the societal gain isn't proportional at all.

Knine

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

No, I was driven to school by our houskeeper most mornings, and walked during the good weather, but it was only about half a mile.

My opinion is that for the input that is put into SN Education, the output doesn't always justify it. Huge resources can be poured into the area, and often the societal gain isn't proportional at all.

So the amount of money spent on disability should be in proportion to their contribution to society?

Well my child with additional needs contributes a hell of a lot more to society then ignorant people exactly like you.