nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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?