The AON Debacle and what it tells us
In this episode I cover the controversial Assessment of Need (AON) process which, to me, shows how the power of silence, supported by the illusion of partnership that representative bodies find themselves, brought us to a place where schools were forced to get the NCSE and the State out of a legal pickle.
This episode gives a single point in the scandal, which gives an example of how the State, supported by the corroboration of representative bodies and stakeholders, and with the silence of those in the service, ensures that services to children with additional needs continues to decline
Shownotes and Links:
01:45 The Assessment of Need Debacle
05:03 Schools’ Struggles and NCSE’s Response
10:21 Union Involvement and Teacher Reactions
12:39 Media Coverage and Public Outcry
21:07 The Aftermath and Lessons Learned
Dara Calleary Speech: https://twitter.com/Donnchadhol/status/1585234176412114945?t=8Fy3OyCIO9BCES035H7ygQ&s=19
https://anseo.net/subscribe – Subscribe to my newsletter
Transcript
Welcome to access on done the collapse of special education. A special podcast from. Unsharp dark. Nash. This is Simon Lewis, a teacher and principal for over 20 years. In this series, I look back over the short history of how children with additional needs have slowly but surely been cast aside by the education system. I argue that much like the crimes of the Catholic church on children, where the scandal of the 20th century. That how the state is treating children with additional needs will be the scandal of the 21st. So far in this series, I've touched on a number of things from the Savage cuts to resources for children with additional needs, to all sorts of question marks over the NC SES. Policies. That's the national Tansel for special education. Which have seen a decrease in support for children. But sometimes it takes one moment to open up a can of worms. And this is where we go today. Unfortunately, like so many scandals of our time, the N C S E were rescued by the support of their friends and the silence of those that could have done something. And chose not to. And like many scandals. It all started off with the legal case. If the start of this episode sounds familiar. It's. It's a shortened. Version of my. My full invested. into. Into the assessment of need debacle, the AOM. Debacle that I aired two years ago in 2022. On a one to start by setting the scene in exactly the same way I set the scene back then. I've already mentioned one famous Carlo Vion in this series. That's Catherine Thomas. And this time. And I apologize in advance. It's another of Carlos famous exports. The singer. And comedian Richie Carvana. Now I never thought someone like Richie cabinet would ever feature in a podcast made by me. He isn't exactly my cup of tea. Anyway. However, I couldn't resist using his best known song as inspiration for that episode. But the assessment of need debacle and the reaction to it from the NCSE might have had me singing one of the lyrics from his song, a and vocal Allah, and the word N a O N as my little pony. And I guess the rest of the words, maybe I'm slightly more vulgar, both the lyrics that I think. Could have been sung after the NCSE is decisions that I might have song would have been I'd sit down there in me, chair being treated like a fool. As they basically try to direct schools to do the job. A high court decision had placed on them. Let's first traveled back a year or so before that. I'm going to high court ruling in 2021 stated that there was a legal requirement on the education system to provide an assessment of education needs as part of the assessment of need process. This was in the what's known as the Epson act, which was made in 2003, but it was never, ever fully implemented. And to be honest, I thought the assessment of need process was completely HSE led one. However, when it came to a child's educational needs, it was actually the responsibility of the national council for special education. The end seat S E. This meant that when it came to providing the assessment of need data for education, the NCSE was supposed to provide at.data. I that is the needs of the child in question. Up until 2017. That would have been possible. They would have been able to do it because the NCSE's job before then was to give children the resources they required based on the data, provided them by the schools, which were essentially psychological reports. And as you probably know, by now, since 2017, the NCSE stopped taking in any data about children from schools. On effectively by 2021, they simply didn't have any data on suedes of children despite having the legal responsibility to do so for the purposes of the assessment of need under the apps and act. No. If that sounds like a bit of a quandary for the NCSE, it was because where were they going to get the data now, after spending so long, getting rid of it. Since 2017 schools have been complaining that the resources have been given to the schools didn't match the needs of the children. And the NCSE had responded by saying the schools were fully resourced, even going as far as saying they were, that schools were putting in soft barriers to stop children with additional needs to come to their schools. They turned on schools year after year. They put in more and more barriers, which downgraded the. Number of supports available to children with additional needs. And if schools wanted extra supports or resources, they had to go through a process that was almost deliberately designed to fail. This only about 8% of applications were successful. 8%. All of the appeal systems were almost deliberately designed. to also fail. As one couldn't appeal on certain grounds. In fact, the NCSE. Did it basically put in as systems where they decided what schools could I could appeal on, and if it didn't fit on their definition of appeals, then schools couldn't appeal them. Even if those grants were perfectly justified, the NCSE downgraded the role of the S at the CNO who no longer could make any decisions. And most decisions were being made by people that never had set foot in a school building. And. In the majority of cases, schools felt they were not to be trusted in applying for the resources that children required. And that seemed to be the sort of narrative that. Schools felt you can't be trusted to tell us what resources you need. In fact, someone in an office somewhere, we'll be doing that for you. The trouble now was the NCSE needed the information from schools to support the AOM process. And. They needed schools to write. A report on children explaining their educational needs, what they required on this was going to be used at to support an Aon application. So in some ways, and in fact, not in some ways, what does absolutely clear was this information was going to be trusted by the NCSE as factual information on a child. How were they going to figure out a way where they could on one hand, not trust teachers, professional opinion for the purposes. Of getting resources. For children with additional. Needs. And on the other hand, completely trust their professional opinion on the educational needs of the same children for the purposes of the assessment of need. They just didn't bother. I was one of the first schools that got a call to say that there was a legal case and they needed me to provide the NCSE with some information on a particular child. If it does. It was it was on the 9th of June 20, 22 to be exact. And I was told that someone from the department of education and someone from the NCSE will be down to me the next day to help me fill out the form. And it was to. Fulfill this legal obligation. I didn't think much of it, to be honest, because they didn't actually explain the legal case. They simply said the mother had given her consent. So I just thought it was part of the Aon process now. And anyway, Dan, they came and the form was filled out and I never heard anything about it again. Few months later. By this stage, I realized that same form. I filled out was due to this particular legal case where the, from the app's ANOC the NCSE and the high course. And despite the fact I wasn't told, apparently I was part of a pilot. I wasn't told once that I was part of a pilot. Bush. I think what I'll do is our lash. The TD Dara, Colleary explain.
Dara:This process involves schools, advocacy groups, management bodies and unions. The department and the NCSC worked with a small number of schools on a draft of the documents required as part of the HSE's assessment of need process. The schools provided valuable feedback on the form and guidance documents which was then used to inform the documents which had been issued to schools. The department and the NCSE have put in place a suite of supports to assist schools in completing the educational component of the process.
Simon:There are a couple of interesting things in this clip. The first one that should strike you. Is that. Clear. Cleary says. Unions. We're involved. in. The negotiations. The second bit is a small number of schools that gave feedback. As one of those pilots, I was only asked about the form. On how user-friendly it was nothing more than that. However, it's the first thing I just mentioned there that matters more than whether the NCSE were pretending to bother, to listen to the likes of me. It's the bit where ministered clearly says that they also involve the union. More importantly, why didn't the union stop this from happening in the first place? It seemed like such an obvious lead. Wrong thing for it to allow their members to take part in. What followed. I was a bit of a juggernaut of a week within a day or so of this memo being released by the department of education, saying that schools would be responsible for the education part of the Aon. Teachers around the country came to piece the pieces together of this bizarre and frankly, arrogant demand that schools are now expected to not only do the work, but to use a completely inappropriate document to do so. not only that there was no information of how this information was going to be used and whether schools would be liable for the information that they wrote. There was no acknowledgement of the extra workload it would bring. And certainly no assurances that there would be resources given to schools to support the children. We were actually writing the document for. Whatever we wrote didn't mean that the child was going to get any extra resources. And one of the things we can't forget is that the situation arose because children with additional educational needs were not getting the service. They were entitled to. Why would any school want to help the very agency that was starving them and the children in their care of the supports that they desperately needed. I made a comparison in a way that I think I feel was a good one. I compared it to a restaurant, where if you had a restaurant with a hundred seats, but the chef had only cooked 40 meals and basically forced the waiting staff to feed everyone properly. That's the reality of schools. A school might have a hundred pupils with additional educational needs, but they might get enough support for 40 of them. And the expectation is that you would basically give the children what they needed from the fraction of the resources they needed. And despite many teachers being missionaries for the Catholic church by, in their daily jobs, as I often argue, they are not Jesus and they can't perform the miracle of the loaves and fishes. A number of well-known teachers, such as Trina golden and Vicky Barron came out with their own experience of this debacle, as well as parent bodies in particular, Rachel Martin from F U S and within a day or two, some decent media were covering the story, the national principal's forum, a lobby group, which I often talk about. And I'm part of, we're also adage of the trops very quickly urgent principles to speak out on offered solutions for this mess. The Irish examiner, Ron, his story and their paper with the headline NCSE, trying to bounce legal obligations to children with disabilities on two principles. And one interesting point about the article is the journalist got a comment from the department of education rather than the NCSE. This was the response from some own named department spokesperson. The departments under. NCSE have put in place a suite of supports to assist schools in completing the educational components of the HSEs Aon process. These include detailed guidance, a short video for use by schools setting out how to comply with the process, email support, dedicated support line. This line will be staffed by education professionals who will assist schools and completing the process. Many people chuckled when they sold the phrase suite of measures, as it reminded them of the days of COVID-19 when the minister for education, Norma Foley used the phrase all the time to describe what they did for schools, which essentially imagined to cracking open a window and providing a helpline that nobody seemed to man. It seemed like things were actually going to happen though. For the very first time we had teachers, we had parents and we'd media all on the same page, all speaking out about it. It was as straightforward a case as I'd ever seen. And finally, we had people speaking. We had voices, we didn't have silence. You might wonder what the union was saying at this point, a few days into this given a couple of days at past. But the answer. Nothing. Not a single word. By the end of the weekend. There was still nothing. And ultimately it took the stakeholders over a week to respond to the growing discontent, which now included education spokespeople from political parties, like the social Democrats and shin Fein. The IPPF finally came out with a statement on Wednesday, which kind of reminded me of the Simpsons episode, where they played back a video of Richard Nixon, claiming to have a fondness for the particular brand of beer in order to try and gain a bit of credibility. They were too late to the party. And finally, after labor came to the party very late. There's always a bandwagon to jump on the I N T O. A week after being asked again and again, by their members as to what they were going to do about the situation. They came out with a statement saying the following. The IMCO has been aware of this issue since June on the stakeholders are briefed by the NCSE. Very recently, I N T O intend to raise the issue of the workload associated with this new requirements, a teacher's consultation council meeting. And it went on without saying very much else. It turned out. Yes. That the, I N T O had known about this since the June, before. And they also didn't criticize the NCSE's move to force. Teachers on principles to fill out a form that the NCSE should have filled out. I guess I should probably mention. One agency, most of you haven't heard of, which is NABSME and abs M E. They are the body that represents boards of management of special schools and schools with special classes. And naturally you'd think they'd have something to say, especially in light of the fact that their members were to be most affected Yes. That's the sound of tumbleweed. They said absolutely nothing. You might think with all the pressure of people speaking out. That's something might change. We had advocacy groups, teachers, principals, even legal people, all saying the same thing. Schools should not be responsible for completing the assessment of need form. And in some ways, It almost did, but there was just one missing ingredient. And to me that missing ingredients. Where the schools in that pilot. The ones that the department of education had tried to say, we're happy enough to fill out the form because while people like me and Trina golden and Vicky Barron, And a couple of others were coming out publicly saying, this is not on, this is not okay. The department of education on the I N T O as well. We're trying to say. There is a very small number of teachers. Showing discontent. Most people were quite happy to fill out the assessment of need for them. So I thought the best idea would be to ask the schools and luckily I have access to them. So I decided to write to every primary school in the country to feed back their thoughts on the AOM process. And according to the ISO, I might've been one of 17 pilot schools, despite never being told I was in a Polish, but there were another 66 schools in this pilot. Surely. These schools would come back to me if I wrote to them. And I spent over two months trying to get schools to come on board and discuss the issue. And of those. 15. Dead. And of those 15 schools. This is what they told me. The Aon process had not been a positive experience for any of the schools that spoke to me. The forum took considerably longer than 20 minutes to fill in as the department on the IMCO was saying on average, it was taking two to three hours per child. Every school that filled in the form was contacted by the NCSE. So alter what the school had entered into the form. Most schools told me that after the NCSE had intervened in their form, the contents no longer represented the child's needs. All agreed that this form was a paper exercise and did nothing to benefit children. They agreed that we were doing the work to get the HSC and the NCSE off the hook from the responsibilities. Most schools reported that when issues were raised to the iron toe, I N T O they were downplayed and CEC reps informed the complainants that they were very much in the minority and feedback had been overwhelmingly positive. With that level of feedback, you would think it would have made a difference. But the trouble for me is only 15 schools came back to me. None. We're willing to go on the record. Most importantly, over 70 of those pilots. Didn't reply. I remember my introduction to this podcast. The effect of silence. In the end, the IMCO had to cover for its tracks in my view, anyway, that there their job was to cover their tracks, given that it was now common knowledge that they had agreed to allow their members to take part in the Aon process. The department of education were only too happy to take part in some pretend protest where the ICO could say they demanded 20 changes to the Avon process. And varied. Of those changes, very little had any impact. The thing basically was pushed through with the IMCO claiming they fought hard for their members when they didn't really do anything. Effectively, instead of fighting for their members, they fought against them. And then when they realized they were all wrong, they went off and claimed they were fighting on behalf of their members all along. And in the end, the Aon process came through and all schools now have to take part and nobody can do anything about it because when it counted enough, people stayed silent. Apart from how silence allows bad things to happen. The Aon debacle also taught us a few other lessons about how special education in Ireland works. On a positive. We learned that there are certain newspapers and certain politicians that believe school staff and parents when they present them with an issue and often they work quickly. We learned that some media outlets. Despite all this evidence. I prefer to stay silent and often will. Put out the, I suppose the department of education's official press releases or, and so on and ignore the protests of parents and schools. We also learned that some politicians. Also work quickly, but we learned that some politicians only jump on the bandwagon when something becomes sexy enough, but don't do anything until then. And then. we learned that certain politicians that actually have the power and most often do have the power often say nothing at all. We learned that representative bodies often don't understand what's going on the ground and aren't particularly interested in finding out. And then they miss the point when, and we learned that lobby groups and grassroots groups do understand what's going on. And that annoys the representative bodies and incentive talking to the grassroots groups. They completely ignore their existence and continue to fail to understand what's actually happening on. the ground. And we saw that in spades with the Aon debacle. We also learned that when you've been caught out doing something wrong, Simply call what you were doing, a pilot or a trial. And that's certainly what I consider happens with my case. One of 17 schools that. We're, very quickly and desperately tried to get us to do this legal thing because they thought they were going to be brought to court. And when it turned out. Wasn't they just called it a trial. And we've also learned anyway, that although it takes very little effort for an agency to introduce an initiative or an extra layer of work into the system, it takes massive efforts for the people affected to try and not only put a stop to it, but to convince those that are supposed to be protecting them to intervene. And in some ways that's the most disappointing part of this whole story. So perhaps I've learned something by going through this very specific scandal, within a much larger scandal of how children with additional needs are being treated. Silence. Is actually only part of the problem. And perhaps there's a much bigger problem. And it's the relationship that. That the department of education seem to have built with the people that. are supposed to represent schools. This debacle was worn in a long series of situations over the last decade where the teacher's union has fought against its own members. Some of, you might remember dread. Probably being the most fractious and infamous one. And I have to say, I must revisit dat for a podcast series soon. Although I did do a bit of an investigation into it. If you want to look back. The Aon debacle for me, ended up being a story of how the entire education system came together to let children down. Everyone from schools to stakeholders, to the department of education, collaborated and corroborated to pull the wool over the eyes of families. When some of us called it out. We were told we were in the minority and we were wrong. Nobody else was complaining. Everyone was happy. The saddest thing for me is that most principals shrugged their shoulders and let it happen. When I put the call out to schools to take less than one minute to email me only 15 dead. Once the whole thing was over the line. As far as the NCSE were concerned, they could now contact whatever school they needed to fill out those forms. And only when it, when this affected a few more principals or went to schools that hadn't gotten touch. All of a sudden when it landed on their door. That's when some principals got in touch with me. It was way too late by then. I have to admit difficult for me to take. For my own sake, despite spending months on this. I had to give up. I know it could easily have been stopped. However, there was one agency that is barely hard mentioned. In a way. And when I say, I mentioned, I've mentioned them several times in this episode, but didn't, basically. Have much to say on this, and it's probably the most important cog in the wheel. And it's the NCSE themselves. The agency that according to the high court case was responsible for gathering the educational data for the AOM process. And I've gone through quite a number of people and organizations that spoke out and bottled. So it's probably only fair that I give the last word to the NCSE themselves. You won't be surprised to hear. This is what they said. they said. absolutely nothing. At all the onshore podcast is written and produced by me, Simon Lewis. If you'd like to hear more of my thoughts on primary education in Ireland, you should subscribe to my mailing list on Shaw dot Nash slash subscribe. And if you've enjoyed this podcast so far, please consider reviewing it on your favorite podcasting player as well. Help other people find it more easily. Until next time. Thanks so much for listening. Goodbye.