Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I am happy to welcome Dr Ernest Purvis, who is the head of policy at Children in Northern Ireland (CiNI). We also have Mary Alice Clancy, who is the policy and campaigns officer with the Royal National Institute of Blind People in Northern Ireland (RNIB NI). You are welcome.

I will hand over to you for an initial presentation. Please feel free to introduce the work of the Partnership for Inclusive Education, so that members and anyone who is watching are clear on what that is. You have up to 10 minutes for your presentation. Apologies that we have kept you waiting, and it would be helpful if you could keep to that timeline. We will then move to questions and answers. We try to keep to five minutes for each enquiry, and that requires members and witnesses to work together. At this stage, I will hand over to you for any opening remarks that you wish to make.

Dr Ernest Purvis (Children in Northern Ireland): Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Committee for the opportunity to speak today. You will be grateful to hear that I will not attempt to summarise the detailed paper that we have shared with the Committee. That would not be the best use of your time, which is probably best spent in open discussion and answering the questions that, you feel, are most important. It is important for the Committee to consider our submission in full, so, instead of presenting a summary, I will use my opening remarks to frame our contribution and highlight what, we think, are the key areas for scrutiny and debate.

The Partnership for Inclusive Education is a group of members from Children in Northern Ireland who work directly with children, families and schools. Across our membership, we have advocates, legal advisers, therapists and trainers, as well as specialists in autism and neurodiversity, sensory and physical disabilities, mental health, communication needs and complex additional needs. We see every day the reality of how the current system operates and the consequences when it does not work as it should.

When the special educational needs (SEN) reform agenda and delivery plan were published, our members felt that it was essential to respond comprehensively. The partnership is keen to help to shape a reform process that is workable, rights-based and grounded in the lived experience of children and families. Everything that we say today is rooted in the best interests of the child and in the legal rights that children and young people already hold. We have a duty to advocate on behalf of the children who are being failed and the families who are struggling. It is important to state clearly from the outset that we want to work constructively with all key stakeholders to support the reform process and to highlight potential solutions. If we are critical, our criticisms are directed at systemic barriers, not at individuals or schools. Across the system, there are dedicated and committed professionals who are doing their best in an environment marked by rising need and severe resource pressure. We are all working towards the same thing: a coherent, inclusive system that gives every child the opportunity to reach their full potential.

We also want to make it clear that we welcome the ambition of the SEN reform agenda. The commitment to early intervention, inclusive practice, improved training and a more joined-up system is urgently needed, and we want to help to ensure that the reforms achieve what they set out to do. To do that, we need to start by recognising why the current system does not function effectively for all children. The legislation is strong and essential in protecting children's entitlement to an effective education. The problems arise in interpretation, implementation and resourcing. That is why families end up in tribunal and so many appeals are conceded. If the reforms are to succeed, they must reinforce, not weaken, the clarity and accessibility of those statutory rights. At the same time, while we support the principle of a graduated early help model, it is crucial that new processes do not inadvertently become new barriers. Early intervention must be responsive, properly supported and clearly defined, and the pathway to statutory assessment and a statement must remain transparent, timely and consistent across Northern Ireland. A successful model is one where early intervention reduces the need for statements, not one where it delays or obstructs them.

Reform also needs to be grounded in robust evidence and transparent data. Many of the most critical indicators of system stress, such as waiting times, children without suitable placements, non-attendance and tribunal data, already exist but are not consistently published or easily accessible. Using that data would not add any bureaucratic burden to the system, and doing so is essential to ensure that children do not fall through the cracks and that the Executive can see clearly whether reform is working. Without that transparency, we risk repeating the patterns that we are trying to fix.

An effective reform plan also requires a serious look at workforce capacity. Teachers, classroom assistants, educational psychologists, therapists and specialist staff play vital roles, and many face recruitment challenges, high caseloads, burnout or limited career pathways. Reform cannot be implemented without a workforce strategy that supports, trains and retains those professionals or without meaningful cooperation between education, health and community-based services.

That brings me to an important point: the community and voluntary sector. Our organisations bring decades of expertise that complements and enhances statutory provision. We deliver specialist training, practical support for families, community-based interventions, disability-specific expertise and rights-based advocacy. Schools routinely tell us that they need and value that expertise. The sector can and should play an important role as a core partner in delivering a more inclusive system.

Chair, I also want to briefly highlight what is missing from the SEN reform agenda, as reflected in our collective response. We have pointed to specific areas, such as mental health, reduced timetables, non-attendance and specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS), which you can read more about in our paper. I will keep my comments focused on the big picture.

First, the lack of public consultation and equality impact assessment (EQIA) is puzzling. This is one of the most far-reaching education reforms in a generation, and it must be assessed for its impact on children with disabilities, rural communities, children from ethnic minority and newcomer families, low-income families, children in care and others who may be disproportionately affected.

Secondly, while the strategy sets out the what, it is less clear about the how when it comes to cross-departmental working. Many of the issues in SEN, particularly mental health, therapeutic input and transitions, cannot be solved by the Education Department alone. A reform agenda of this scale requires clear structures, shared responsibilities and mechanisms for joint delivery across Departments. The Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 sets out a range of legal duties in that regard, but its potential has not been fully realised.

Thirdly, the agenda needs a more explicit articulation of resources and sequencing. Ambition alone will not deliver change. Investment must be aligned with legal obligations, targeted where it has greatest impact and sustained over time. Crucially, early intervention is not just the right approach but the most financially responsible one. When the right support is offered early, the need for costly crisis measures and appeals is dramatically reduced. We must also be honest about the risks of getting this wrong. If reforms are implemented without adequate workforce and support service capacity, without proper data and transparency, without co-design and without protecting children's statutory rights, we risk increasing the number of appeals, non-attendances and exclusionary practices and deepening the very inequalities that the agenda seeks to address. That is why careful implementation, monitoring and the Committee's scrutiny role matter, because real children feel the consequences.

I will end by emphasising the opportunity in front of us. The partnership brings solutions as well as concerns. We can support training for schools; help to co-design guidance and practice models; contribute specialist knowledge on autism, sensory disabilities, mental health and communication needs; work alongside the Department and the Education Authority (EA) to develop models of early intervention that are evidence-based and deliverable; and be a genuine partner in moving the system towards inclusion.

Behind every policy debate, and as we speak, there is a child who is waiting for an assessment, the right support and a school place and for adults to get the system right. When the system works, the transformation in that child's life is remarkable. They attend school regularly, they learn and develop, their confidence grows, their anxiety decreases and their mental health improves. Their family finds stability, and their future opens up. That is what this reform agenda is ultimately about, and that is why getting it right matters. We can create an education system that genuinely values every child, meets their needs and enables them to fulfil their potential. The partnership is committed to working with everyone to make that vision a reality.

Thank you. I am happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. Thank you for your written briefing and the oral evidence. It has been really helpful and comprehensive. I have a number of questions. It occurs to me that I should register an interest, in that my wife works for an organisation that sits on the partnership. I note that, for the sake of having it on the record.

In my questions, I will focus on the two issues of early intervention and statementing. Oddly, we do not always see agreement, but your evidence is not a million miles away from some of the things that the EA has submitted to us in evidence today. It talks about ensuring that there is a new model of support at statementing point that seems to work for pupils; that needs to be delivered but has to be underpinned by early intervention. Some of the issues are about trust in the system, and that makes it difficult, sometimes, for parents to have engagement with the EA. Will you expand on that a little bit from your perspective? You said that you were a bit concerned about the lack of detail that is coming through from the EA on what a new support model might look like. Could you set out what, you think, a new model of support that is focused on outcomes for children would look like?

Dr Purvis: Of course. There is alignment there in the need to invest in early intervention and a new support model that delivers what children need at an earlier stage. We absolutely support that focus and emphasis in prioritisation.

For us, early intervention means identifying a child's needs as early as possible and putting the right support in place before difficulties escalate. Timely and proportionate help, whether in early years or in primary or post-primary education, is about getting the child the right support at the earliest possible stage. Our comments on investment and where resources are needed indicate direct support and front-line services for children. The EA has talked a lot about local impact teams (LITs), where it wants that model to go and what it wants it to do. We want to see that capacity being strengthened, investment being put there and children being able to access that support at an earlier stage. That is what we mean by early intervention.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That was going to be my next question. We also hear consistently that resource is so scarce. If you were making the decisions on the scarce resource that is available, where would you put it right now in the system?

Dr Purvis: I return to what I said about early intervention. We recognise the current financial climate that the Government are operating in and the need to prioritise. The priority should be the direct support and front-line services that children rely on, which the local impact teams have been set up to deliver.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will move on to statementing. I noted that you said that, whatever happens with early intervention, you are clear that the pathway to a statement should be transparent, understood and accessible. Those may not be your exact words, but that is the point that you were making. Does the current statementing process work? The feedback from the EA is that the lack of support upstream drives the statementing. Do you share the view that, if you get early intervention right, you may not require as many statements, or do you think that there will always be a need for statementing to be the end destination of the process?

Dr Purvis: I need to be careful about how I answer that question, because there will always be a need for statements. However, the point of early intervention — strengthening its capacity and delivery and investing in it — is ultimately to reduce the need for statements. I agree with some of the analysis that shows that children and parents are being forced into that more formal pathway in order to access support. It is absolutely because of the lack of early intervention and lack of support services at an earlier stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): It often ends up in tribunals because it is resisted, and that causes more distress and expense for the parents and children involved.

I have another question on statementing. You are clear that the legal framework is clear and robust and should be treated as such. When a statement is granted, what is your assessment of what a good statement looks like? What support should come on the other side of that, so that it is not just a paper exercise of conceding that the child needs a statement? What does effective support look like on the other side of the statement?

Dr Purvis: Ultimately, the support should be tailored to the individual child, and others are better placed to talk about the technical details of a statement. I cannot reflect the expertise on that from across the partnership.

There is an important point about the legislation and the legal clarity. SEN reform is an interesting area, because, normally, we come to talk to MLAs about strengthening legislation and are looking for legal reforms to support children and young people and to strengthen services. However, my impression is that the legislation is quite strong, and I am unsure about how the partnership would feel about any potential dilution or watering down of children's legal rights. I do not think that the partnership would support that. Ultimately, a statement should be tailored to the child, and it is a legal document and is extremely important in accessing support.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I have one other question, and you may not feel that it is in your area of expertise. The issue around the draft revised code of practice sits in the mix, and it is hinted that it might be formally introduced. What is your sense of that? Would you argue that the code of practice needs to be changed, or do you feel that it is working effectively in its current format? We know that the processes do not work, but does the legal framework sit as it should?

Dr Purvis: Across the partnership, some people have expressed concerns about the draft revised code of practice, and they are looking for legal clarity on that. They are concerned about the barriers and obstacles to access and support and about it being more difficult for children and families to get that.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I want to make sure that I understand this, because it is something that I would like to pick up with the EA. Early intervention and the legislative framework that goes around the whole process from stage one through to a statement should be about getting children access to support, not putting barriers in place. Is that a fair assessment of how the partnership feels?

Dr Purvis: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is helpful.

Mrs Mason: Thank you very much for coming in and presenting today.

A line in your presentation caught my eye. It states that the partnership is:

That is something that we hear time and time again from school leaders, principals and even parents who are reading the documents. Will you give me more of an understanding of your take on that, or what you mean by that?

Dr Purvis: A lot of it centres around workforce capacity, the structures that are in place and the operational reality of some of what we have heard around local impact teams and the concerns. However, it is important that I highlight that the policy intention regarding early intervention, supporting children at an earlier stage and getting them that support is the right one. We need to try to close that gap and to address the issues and obstacles that are getting in the way of operational delivery.

Mrs Mason: That is what we hear time and time again. You mentioned LITs. We have heard from experts in those teams who have grave concerns; in fact, they are concerned to the point that they say that, even if they were fully resourced and had all the staff that they needed, the model is not right for getting the right support to the children. Is that something that you are hearing specifically around LITs?

Dr Purvis: Yes, members have raised similar concerns around local impact teams. I will be honest: I am not across the detail of the model or the shortcomings, but I am aware of the general comments that the members have raised around workforce capacity and the need to invest in front-line support services.

Mrs Mason: I want to pick up on what the Chair said about early intervention. You gave a clear outline of your view on that. When the idea of LITs was first floated, there was an idea that Health was going to be heavily involved, but then it went in the opposite direction. Are you concerned that there are not allied health professionals (AHPs) working alongside those teams, specifically when we are talking about early intervention and getting the children the support that they need as quickly as possible?

Dr Purvis: It is a major concern for all the groups and organisations on the partnership that we need to break down the barriers to cross-departmental working and interdisciplinary practices. It does not matter to a child or a family how teams are structured or why the silos exist. We need to create structures and put governance around them that creates better integration, because, ultimately, that will lead to better outcomes for the child.

Mrs Mason: It is the definition of a child-centred approach in that sense.

In your briefing paper, you mention that the number of children being educated at home has increased by almost 300% over the past decade. I am doing some work on parents who face difficulties with their children not being able to go to school and emotionally based school non-attendance. Do you have any views on how the Department or EA are dealing with that?

Dr Purvis: We have been engaging with the EA and the Department on that by trying to highlight it and shine a spotlight on the experiences of those children and families, some of whom are in really difficult and challenging circumstances. We tried to do something constructive and positive in that space by developing an evidence-based guide for schools on best practice. We took examples of best practice from schools across Northern Ireland that are supporting children through phased reintegration to school by taking emotional health and well-being and trauma-informed approaches. We are doing our best to try to get the best practice shared across the system. We have been talking to the EA, and it has told us about initiatives that it is taking on the education and welfare service and specific training that educational psychology is delivering across schools. The Department of Education has updated us on the likes of new school attendance codes, which will help us identify those children who are suffering and not attending school. We need to do a lot of awareness-raising and educating, even among the public, but we are doing our best to support the parents, families and children who are in those difficult situations. We are noticing that it is a huge issue.

Mrs Mason: You mentioned the support. One of the biggest issues that parents bring to me is the language that is being used in the Department and the EA and how it impacts on the children facing this situation. Best practice is definitely needed, because there are such inconsistencies in what one school is doing compared with another or even within a school between one teacher and another. Thanks for clarifying that.

Ms Hunter: I thank the panel for such a detailed briefing and for being here today. You touched on supporting deaf children. Families in my constituency that I have spoken to have said that that can be such an isolating place for children to be when they do not have the right support and struggle. Will you expand a bit on what we, as a Committee, could do to support deaf children?

Dr Purvis: Yes, our briefing paper talks about the importance of specialist support. I wish that I had some of the organisations in Partnership that could talk more specifically about support for deaf children. Again, however, there are examples of really good practice across those specialist organisations. Mary Alice might want to come in on the curriculum framework that RNIB developed, which really highlights the significance of that specialist support. Do you want to speak on that, Mary Alice?

Ms Mary Alice Clancy (Royal National Institute for Blind People Northern Ireland): Sure. I thank the Committee and the Chair for having us here today. I will not speak on behalf of deaf children, but I recommend that you speak to Jacqueline Melville from the National Deaf Children's Society (NDCS), who could provide you with some answers. We are also a sensory disability service, so I can speak about best practice in our work on that. In his paper, Ernest mentioned the curriculum framework for children with a vision impairment, and he alluded to that as an example of best practice that has been informed by co-design with academia, charities, qualified teachers of the visually impaired and those with the lived experience of visual impairment.

Just to set the scene, visual impairment is a low-incidence, high-needs disability. That means that an educator might not come across visual impairment often in their classroom, but it is high-need, so there is a requirement for specialist support. Unfortunately, not having best practice and its being a low-incidence disability means that children and young people often receive the wrong support from the wrong person at the wrong time. The consequences of that are severe in that pupils with a visual impairment have lower attainment rates than those who do not. While the UK disability employment rate is roughly 56%, when you drill down into the figures for working-age adults in the UK with a visual impairment, you find that it is 27%. There was a real need, therefore, to come together to codify best practice.

The UK-wide document was developed by the University of Birmingham; UK-wide charities such as RNIB and the Thomas Pocklington Trust; qualified teachers of the visually impaired; habilitation specialists; and those with lived experience. It is a large document, with 14 areas covering topics as varied as literacy, emotional well-being, developing social skills and the like. It goes from age nought to 25, so the notion of early intervention is embedded in the document.

Briefly, when talking about the right support, the document mentions the times when we need specialist support, such as a qualified teacher of children and young people with vision impairment (QTVI), and states how a QTVI should intervene versus a teacher or classroom assistant and when a classroom assistant or a teacher should intervene. When talking about the right time, the document — again, it covers those from the age nought to 25 — works on the basis that, first, you are teaching a young person to learn how to access the curriculum, and then you are teaching them how to access learning, advocate for their own needs, become independent and develop confidence. That is the right support and the right time. It is then about the right setting. For most children and young people with a vision impairment, the right setting will be a mainstream classroom. The document asks where a classroom assistant intervenes, where a teacher intervenes and when there needs to be specialist input from a QTVI or a habilitation specialist. That is the co-design.

I should say that the Education Authority endorsed that document in its graduated response to SEND. The Education Authority sits on the reference group for the curriculum framework. The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) endorsed it. CCEA recently translated the curriculum framework into Irish, because we have Irish-medium learners with a vision impairment.

Ms Hunter: Brilliant. Thank you. In the interests of time, I will briefly group my two questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Be very brief, Cara.

Ms Hunter: Absolutely.

One of the key issues that I, as an MLA, have noted is that every child is not getting the right placement to suit their needs. For example, the family of a six-year-old boy in P3 feel as though he falls between the gaps. He is in a special school, but they want him to transition to SPiMS. He has behavioural issues, but he loves to learn and is highly intelligent; he is learning the Greek alphabet, for example. Have you picked up on the fact that there are children who have their struggles but fall between the two types of schools and do not really suit either? Do you see that at your end, with families struggling to get the right school setting for their child?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I ask for a brief response to that.

Dr Purvis: Yes, no problem. Ultimately, the issue of inappropriate placements is huge. That reflects and goes back to the placement crisis that we have, with the annual cycle of children struggling to get a place and the proliferation of specialist provision in mainstream schools. Our view is that every child should be placed somewhere that is appropriate for their needs.

Ms Hunter: Thank you so much.

Mrs Guy: Thanks, folks, for the evidence today. We have had a lot of reference to early intervention and the need to intervene with kids as early as possible. The issue with support through LITs is that we have a two-tier system, with kids in non-statutory settings not being able to access that support. What is the impact of that, and is it sustainable?

Dr Purvis: That is really concerning, and, particularly with early years, we try to highlight in the paper that there should not be a distinction and that children's access to that support should not be determined by the setting. That is not sustainable. We need to resolve that and address that inequality.

Mrs Guy: In your briefing, you reference the over-reliance on pilot projects, and I am sympathetic to that point of view, given the financial constraints that we have right now and the evidence that you have given about the need to focus on services. What is your assessment of how that is panning out? Should we start to seriously consider scaling down pilot projects in order to focus on front-line services?

Dr Purvis: I understand the rationale for pilot projects if a new or innovative practice needs tested, evaluated and properly considered before it is scaled up or mainstreamed, but we highlighted that because, again, we are concerned about the prospect of postcode lotteries for support. We need to get away from that, and pilot projects should never be used as something to point to at a time of financial difficulties or public-sector spending constraints. Ultimately, if what is being delivered is effective, supports children and produces better outcomes, it needs to be rolled out across the board.

Mrs Guy: You repeatedly mention in your report something that we have heard evidence about during the inquiry so far, and that is the need for the Departments of Education and Health in particular to work more closely together. It feels as though we are not making a lot of progress on that. Where does that need to go right now? Do we need those Ministers to make a statement on where they will come together and work and give us a sense of clear areas of cooperation?

Dr Purvis: There are lots of committed and passionate people who are trying to bring those things together and are doing their best in the teams that they work in and through the structures that they are trying to operate. There is potentially an issue around governance, and we would always welcome movement towards greater integration and collaboration at the highest level. It is important to say that there is a legal duty and a legal imperative through the Children's Services Co-operation Act 2015 to ensure that collaboration and structures are in place for that type of integration. I do not fully know why we still face those barriers. It could be because of governance and structures, but it should be a priority for action and improvement as part of the reform process.

Mr Middleton: Thank you both for your presentations and for sharing your report with us. I have a couple of brief questions, but they are overarching and about bridging that gap, as Cathy said, between policy and operational reality.

My question is about the participation of children and families. Dr Purvis, how do we get beyond what many see as tokenistic engagements with children and families? How do you see the Department better engaging with children and families on the reforms?

Dr Purvis: I tried to signal in my opening remarks the role that the community and voluntary sector can play in the reform process by being a critical friend, providing a challenge function, projecting the lived experience of the children and families with whom we work every day and reporting that to the Department, the EA and the Committee. We really need to harness that and use the potential that is there. I feel that there is a genuine desire across the sector to do that and to support the participation work that you are talking about.

Mr Middleton: Do you see the Department or the EA being reluctant to engage? Is it reluctance, or is it about capacity to engage more thoroughly with the community and voluntary sector? What is the barrier to that?

Dr Purvis: I do not know; that is the short answer. I do not sense reluctance. Maybe it is just a question of timing, procedure or process. Members of the partnership certainly felt that it was important to respond to the SEN reform agenda. As part of our role at Children in Northern Ireland as the regional umbrella organisation, last year we invited the Minister to talk to members about his plans for reform. He was not able to make it, but Janis Scallon, the director for inclusion in the Department, came and talked to our members about those plans. We are very open and want to engage as much as possible.

Mr Middleton: Your report:

but raises concerns about what you describe as "aspirational indicators". I am looking to tease out your thoughts on the accountability mechanisms. Is it just an issue of data? What accountability mechanisms would you like to see for waiting times, placement availability and reduced timetables?

Dr Purvis: As I said in my opening remarks, we have data that is not easily accessible, that officials have and can access and that the EA uses daily. We would like to see more transparency in that. The gaps in the outcomes framework that we highlighted are key indicators of system stress or system strain. If you wanted to monitor the impact of reform and determine whether it is working, we would welcome more transparency in that data and, going back to your point about participation, hearing directly from children and families. We are not undermining what is in the outcomes framework; we welcome absolutely the intention to survey widely and get a proper picture of that lived experience.

Mr Middleton: My final question is maybe more for Mary, although I appreciate that she is not representing the National Deaf Children's Society. The report highlighted the fact that there is a 38% decline in the number of teachers of deaf children and young people. I do not know the reason for that, but maybe you could say why there has been such a decline in people entering that specialism. Is it the same for children and young people who are affected by sight loss?

Ms Clancy: I would defer to the National Deaf Children's Society on that, but I can speak to a similar issue. We have qualified teachers of the visually impaired. We have seen in the Education Authority a year-on-year increase in the number of students who require the support of a QTVI. However, many QTVIs are coming to retirement age, and that is putting a lot of caseload pressure on the QTVIs. The Education Authority and the Department really need to start future-proofing the workforce, because we will see many members of staff retiring soon. Need far outstrips supply at the moment, so it is a resource issue.

Mr Middleton: Thank you.

Mr Baker: Thank you for your answers and presentations. Ernest, how far are we from having an inclusive education system?

Dr Purvis: I want to answer that in a positive way. We really welcome the prioritisation of special educational needs reform at a political level. That is really important, and there is an opportunity to make a big stride forwards towards having a more inclusive system. However, part of me wants to be realistic as well and say that there is a lot to do. If you asked me about examples of best practice internationally, I would say that I have looked at some material. I am not an expert in it, but I have looked at some education systems across Europe that seem to be way more advanced on inclusion than we are.

Mr Baker: We do not even have an inclusion policy. You mentioned that Janis Scallon came to talk to you. I ask about that policy all the time, but it has still not been produced. That is frustrating.

We talk about the potential that we have going forward, but there are things in the here and now that can be done, particularly for children with special educational needs and disabilities. If we were to have a "SEN first" approach to placements, could we end the cycle of the continuous crisis of the same children being left behind year-on-year?

Dr Purvis: By "SEN first", do you mean placing children with additional needs before the wider admissions process?

Mr Baker: Yes.

Dr Purvis: There is definitely merit in exploring what that would mean practically. I have done no analysis of what that would look like and what the implications would be, but the current situation with the annual cycle of placements and the crisis in that is not sustainable from our perspective. It is one of the most fundamental breaches of children's rights and legal rights here. It amounts to disability discrimination in the widest sense, because it just does not happen with children who do not have additional needs. Systemically and structurally, there is something really wrong there. We would absolutely welcome and we want to see a real emphasis and focus on addressing that.

Mr Baker: You just touched on where my next point was going. We do not give places to children in mainstream if that classroom does not exist, but there is a practice here of doing that with SEN. I cannot look past that being a numbers game, with the EA saying that it has x number of children placed, yet they are physically sitting in the house. One thing that we probably have not heard enough of in the inquiry is the practice of using reduced timetables and the impact that that has. Will you go into your experiences of that a bit? The number of children who are missing school but being marked in while they wait on their school place is probably not even being noted, and the impact that that is having on their education is not being noted. For me, that is not a child-centred approach, and it goes against the rights of a child.

Dr Purvis: Yes, we are really concerned about the use of reduced timetables and their wider use in recent years. In developing the briefing, we raised the fact that members of the partnership are of the view that some of the use of reduced timetables is potentially unlawful. That is a really important point as well. It should not happen. Again, we highlighted the fact that it is a gap, because it is not addressed specifically or explicitly in the SEN reform agenda document or delivery plan. It is a major area of concern, and it requires action.

Some of the areas that we point to for potential solutions or, at least, initial actions could be to have a proper reporting mechanism and some sort of framework that would govern its use so that we can understand and see the extent of it, because it is children and families, as well as their advocates and legal advisers, who are raising it.

It is hard to get data and evidence on it.

Mr Baker: Does that create pressure between parents and schools rather than between parents and the EA, for example? Is the pressure more on school leaders?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): May we have a brief response, Ernest?

Dr Purvis: Yes, I think so. It put parents in a really difficult position. If they do not have an advocate or the right advice, what can they do in that situation? A lot of parents probably feel trapped into accepting the reduced timetable, and that is not acceptable.

Mr Baker: Thank you.

Mr Brooks: Thank you for your presentation, Ernest. I noted some of the commentary in your briefing paper about SPiMS and so on. No one around the table — perhaps not even the Department and the Minister — would deny that SPiMS has been part of an approach that has imperfectly dealt with a situation where we have had a crisis with the available places in mainstream schools relative to the numbers who would otherwise be better placed in special schools. There is a recognition that the system is imperfect. In principle, however, do you see the worth in SPiMS? Is it the case that you are not against it in principle? Does SPiMS have a place in the system?

Dr Purvis: In the briefing paper, I tried to reflect the general feeling across the partnership, which is that the recent proliferation of SPiMS is a response to the lack of investment in special schools and the limited number of places that are available in those schools. That is what people are reflecting. The issue with SPiMS — I am interpreting what people are saying — concerns quality and oversight. There is no regional framework at the moment that I am aware of to ensure a level of consistency and a set of standards across SPiMS. It will be important for the Committee to consider the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) report on SPiMS, which highlights those matters. We agree with the concerns and issues that are raised in that report.

To put it another way, I do not think that there is strong opposition to SPiMS. We are not saying that —.

Mr Brooks: There needs to be a better system of regulation, and SPiMS needs to be run better. I accept that. By the way, I also accept that there is a lack of resources for special schools. The Minister has, I understand, put forward the SEN capital plan, and I hope that the Executive will consider that soon, because it is important, if we want to provide those places.

I will be a bit parochial here. The rise in the numbers of young people with learning difficulties such as autism means that, when we talk about SPiMS, that is often what we picture it to be for. There have been references to deaf children today. Cregagh Primary School in my constituency has a really good system. The staff there speak highly of the fact that their children's mainstream learning is done alongside the school's deaf unit's learning. That normalises having children with disabilities around, meaning that the other pupils do not notice the difference in many ways, because they are growing up side by side, playing together in the playground, learning sign language and doing things that make their learning truly inclusive. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) has said that it was positive to see that the school has a nursery, so it is providing SPiMS even earlier. We have talked about international best practice, but is that an example of best practice in Northern Ireland that can be improved and honed?

Dr Purvis: Absolutely. I am not aware of that specific example, but, where we can highlight and share inclusive practice, we should do that. We should let people know how it works and how it came about.

It is fair to say that there are examples of good practice in specialist provision in mainstream settings. Those are exactly the people to whom you should go if you are looking to develop a set of standards or trying to come up with a framework and proper regulation.

Mr Brooks: Absolutely.

I will expand on Danny's question quickly. You said that there are examples that, you believe, demonstrate international best practice: where are they? Will you tell us a bit more about examples that we may wish to look at?

Dr Purvis: I am conscious that there are all sorts of contextual factors involved that might mean that some of the examples that we have looked at across Europe are not appropriate models for here. Portugal is one such model. It has gone as far as getting rid of special schools, or, more accurately, it is using them differently. It looks as though officials and people working in the education system here have looked at that model, because Portugal uses former special schools as resource hubs and places from which specialist staff can be used to go out and support children in mainstream settings. Italy is an interesting model. Again, it got rid of special schools many years ago. The EA and the Department have talked a lot about how classroom assistants are used to provide a one-to-one support model in Italy. I think that Italy uses a co-teaching model, which means that a teacher in a classroom is supported by specialist staff, so children are educated together in the one classroom. Some members of the partnership have looked at examples from Nordic countries, such as Finland. Again, we are talking about inclusion and about everyone being educated together, which is the point that you made about Cregagh Primary School. I think that I am right in saying that all those models are being looked at and that some of the examples of best practice are being considered as part of the reform process.

Mr Brooks: Thank you very much. I am sure that the Chair will agree with me that if you come across anything else from international practice that we should know about, you should inform us.

Mr Burrows: Thank you for your excellent briefing and for your written submission, which I read with interest.

First, I am keen to hear your thoughts on homeschooling. This is no judgement on anyone who homeschools, because there can be a variety of reasons for doing it, but some national reviews suggest that homeschooling presents a risk factor for children who may be neglected. There is not the same visibility from a safeguarding perspective as there would be at school. In light of the 300% rise in homeschooling and given some of the real risks involved, how can we encourage parents to send their children back to school?

Dr Purvis: There are a number of factors behind the rise in elective home education. Undoubtedly, one of them is the lack of support for children with additional needs. I sense that one of the things that the Department and the EA want to achieve is to regain the trust of parents and families. That is a key part of the SEN reform agenda. If we can start to show hard evidence that the reforms are working, that the system is improving and that children get support sooner and it is the support that they need, we can start to address some of the issues around children falling out of school and instead receiving elective home education. That is probably only part of the picture, however.

The safeguarding aspect is important. We mentioned it in the briefing, so we are also concerned about it. There should be something in place to capture why more children are being educated at home, and the Education Authority should be informed about who the children are and where they are. That is important.

Mr Burrows: I am worried about children flying under the radar. I am aware of cases owing to my policing background. I view it in the round, however, and homeschooling cuts across all education, not just specialist education.

My second question is about personal learning plans (PLPs). You cannot deny their importance. To make PLPs sustainable, should teachers have free periods in which they can complete and review them in order to make them meaningful? Otherwise, they may become a rushed, tick-box exercise.

Dr Purvis: I do not know about the technical details of the paperwork for the personal learning plans. Others would be better placed to answer that question. Generally, we listen carefully to what teachers and school leaders tell us about the associated burden of bureaucracy, and we listen to special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) in particular. It is important to listen to them and to try to improve and streamline processes where possible. Everything has to be balanced to make sure that there is proper recording and support and that everything is tailored to the child. A PLP should therefore not be a tick-box exercise or something that teachers can fly through, but they should be streamlined in order to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on those whose job it is to spend time with children and connect with them.

Mr Burrows: I once heard that bureaucracy is like cholesterol, in that there is good and bad. We want our teachers to have the time to complete PLPs properly so that children can get the best out of the tailored plans. There is, however, other bureaucracy that appears to be pointless, but I will address that issue at another time.

My final question concerns a thorny issue that I have raised before. We ask a lot of our teachers who provide special educational provision in mainstream schools. Do we give them enough support? This is not a judgement on the children, who may be dysregulated, but I have heard about teachers being kicked or bitten. As I said, that is not a judgement on the child, as, unfortunately, it is just the position that they are in. Are teachers given enough Team Teach training and training in de-escalation techniques? Do they have sufficient access to proper sensory rooms?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I ask that you give a brief response, while still covering the issues raised.

Dr Purvis: Briefly, we fully support more training being provided. From any engagement that we have had with schools, we know that they welcome such opportunities. The community and voluntary sector wants to support teachers in any way we can through our specialist expertise and experience.

Mr Burrows: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): All members have had the opportunity to ask questions, so that brings the session to a close. I thank you for your written briefing and your oral evidence, which was constructive, reflective, thoughtful and helpful for our inquiry. It has provided us with some really helpful perspectives. Thank you for your time and for your engagement with the Committee.

Dr Purvis: Thank you.

Ms Clancy: Thank you.