Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you for joining us this afternoon, Gillian: you are very welcome. I hope that we will be able to hear from you in full, but there is a risk that motions and Divisions in the Chamber may impact on our quorum. Given that, I will hand over to you to introduce your paper and present it to members. I will not take up any more time, given that we are pressed for time.

Gillian Kane (NIA Research Office): Thanks very much, Chair. I am happy to be here.

As you know, the Committee requested the paper to inform its upcoming inquiry into special educational needs. The aim of the paper was to describe the progress that has been made on the recommendations of the 2021 PAC report on the impact review of special educational needs.

There were seven main recommendations in the report, and the Department of Education (DE) accepted all of them. Briefly, they were that there should be an independent review of the Education Authority (EA); that there should be an independent review of SEN provision and processes; that DE should implement a rigorous performance monitoring process with respect to the EA; that the EA board should satisfy itself as to the quality and relevance of the information provided to it; that deficiencies in the management information held by the EA should be addressed urgently and that the EA should collate data on the number of children identified as needing SEN support but still waiting to be referred to the Educational Psychology Service (EPS); that there should be a review of the effectiveness of the funding allocated to all stages of the SEN process; and that there should be a greater understanding of the factors behind the increase in the number of appeals. That paraphrases the seven recommendations. It is clear that some of them are likely to be qualitative and that there may not necessarily be publicly available information on all of them.

Before looking at the recommendations, it is worth noting that there have been, as, I am sure, the Committee is aware, eight reviews of SEN processes and provision since 2017. The recently published SEN reform agenda document noted that, collectively, those reviews have made over 200 recommendations.

The SEN reform agenda document was published in February 2025. The Department describes it as:

underpinning current challenges in the system. The agenda was accompanied by a delivery plan from 2025 to 2030. The plan outlines a list of activities and actions that will be taken from year 1. There is also a table of early actions, which is included in the paper.

Overall, the actions are grouped under 24 headings, which include 'Early Intervention', 'Statutory Assessment and Annual Review process' and 'Workforce Strategy'. The Department also undertakes to:

The availability and quality of data were referenced significantly in the PAC report. Things have moved on since the PAC report, and it would be interesting to find out how many of the actions that were outlined in February are under way.

The PAC report's first recommendation was that there should be an independent review of the Education Authority. That was particularly because the Committee was:

The report continues:

That is strong feedback from the report.

In 2021, the Department commissioned Baker Tilly Mooney Moore to undertake a landscape review, which was published in 2022. The review looked particularly at the EA's effectiveness and governance, including the extent to which the organisation was delivering against the Executive's priorities. The landscape review recommendations focused on three themes: "Complex problems require creative solutions"; "EA capacity and capability"; and "Demonstrating stronger accountability".

There are areas for potential further exploration in relation to the EA, in particular. Which of the recommendations in the landscape review have been accepted by DE and the EA? Have they been reflected in the SEN reform agenda? What progress has there been in the operational effectiveness of the EA since the publication of the landscape review? What has changed since 2022?

The second Committee recommendation was that there should be an independent review of SEN provision and processes::

to include:

In April 2022, Ipsos was commissioned to publish a report, and that was published in March 2023. Ipsos described the main aim of the project as being:

The Ipsos report contained 42 recommendations, including the need to move to a more child-centred approach, the strengthening of governance and oversight of SEN by DE and the setting in place of an action plan to lead and implement transformational change. That plan:

There are 42 recommendations grouped under 15 headings. It would be interesting to explore in more depth what progress has been made since the publication of the Ipsos report, especially around early intervention, benchmarking and data, as outlined in the terms of reference.

It is fairly easy to say that the first two recommendations have been progressed. The other recommendations are more qualitative in nature. The third recommendation was the implementation by DE of a rigorous performance management process for the EA. DE's 2025-26 business plan undertook to commence implementation of the SEN reform agenda and set out a number of indicators, including, for example, the percentage of SEN placements at key transition points, the percentage of referrals to statutory assessment and parental confidence. However, there is nothing available publicly specifically about how DE has made the performance management process more rigorous. That might be worth exploring in more detail, especially around the statutory framework for assessment and statementing.

The fourth recommendation related to the PAC's concern at the extent of the EA board's oversight and challenge of EA's performance and, particularly, the information that is provided to it. The Committee was strong in saying that it:

It is a tricky question to answer, but it would, perhaps, be worth exploring in more detail with DE and EA how the quality and accuracy of the information supplied to the EA board has been improved, if at all, and what steps have been taken to make that happen and whether the board's oversight has improved.

The fifth recommendation relates to deficiencies in management information and recommends that clear performance frameworks are put in place. The report stated that, historically, there had been issues with:

but that some of those issues had been helped by the move to one IT system. As I mentioned, in the SEN reform delivery plan and outcomes framework there is reference to the better use of data and improved data processes. Potential points for consideration could be to what extent data collection has improved since the PAC report, whether staff are now more skilled in data input and analysis and whether there are any opportunities to make the processes more digital.

The sixth recommendation was a review of the effectiveness of the funding. That was addressed in the Ipsos report. The PAC report stated:

One Ipsos finding was that there were inefficiencies in the system and instances of unnecessary duplication in admin processes. School staff noted having to provide the same data to different parts of the EA or provide data that was held by the EA to other stakeholders in multidisciplinary teams.

There are areas for potential consideration about digitisation for greater efficiencies. Have the DE and EA analysed the cost of each stage of the SEN process as per the PAC recommendation, and are any actions being taken to make the systems and processes more efficient?

Finally, the PAC highlighted and made a recommendation about further analysis of the increase in the number of appeals as a matter of urgency. During the PAC review, the EA gave assurances that action was now being taken to look into the increase in appeals and the level of successful appeals against the EA. Potential points to consider would be what the current trends are

, what lessons were learned from the EA's analysis, what the likely impact of the new SEN framework would be when fully implemented and whether there have been any changes to the statementing process to make statements more specific and thereby reduce the number of appeals.

That is a quick run through the seven recommendations. As I mentioned, some are more concrete than others, and not all the information to assess progress against them is necessarily in the public domain, so that, perhaps, is worth exploring a bit more with the Department.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): OK, Gillian. Thank you for that, and thanks for getting through a lot of material quickly, as we are pushed for time.

That was a helpful scene setter for where the Committee might go in considering our terms of reference for the inquiry. I have no specific questions. Do any members have any questions that they want to raise with Gillian about some of those specific recommendations or any of the reports?

Mr Sheehan: Just a quick question about efficiency and value for money. The Audit Office also produced a report that showed that, despite billions being spent on special educational needs, neither the EA nor the Department could show that they were getting value for money. Did you have a look at the Audit Office report, or were you dealing specifically with this report?

Miss Kane: I dealt with this report in particular.

Mr Sheehan: Right, OK.

Miss Kane: I think that it mirrored some of the findings of the NIAO report.

Mr Sheehan: OK, thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Deputy Chair.

I do not think that there are any further questions, so hopefully that is a good starting point to give us time to think about our terms of reference for the inquiry. I appreciate you making yourself available for us today, Gillian. Thank you.

Miss Kane: Thank you.