Thread by @CatrionaGolden, The implementation of a new SNA model has gotten a bit lost [...]

The implementation of a new SNA model has gotten a bit lost in the madness of the last year.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what it means and what implications should be.

Here's a thread where I try to dig into the main points.

@SNAsSpeakOut
#edchatie

#1

The new model is based on this review.

It was piloted with a limited amount of schools, and increased resourcing from what will be available (please jump in if you were a pilot school and have info).

#2
https://ncse.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NCSE-PAP6-Comprehensive-Review-SNA-Scheme.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi0gNvK-OvuAhXCQhUIHUvEBfYQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3YIAupH9jLOnfumUL1CL72

It was due for implementation for this year, but "postponed" to 2021/2022 (with elements de facto introduced).

It's expected to be rolled out this year by DES.

It's involves a frontloaded allocation of SNA, for 2 years, in the same way as SET allocation currently.

#3

Allocation will be based on SET allocation (doubling down in particular on the hugely negative impact of the new SET model on new and developing schools)

There hasn't been an indication of when it will be released

This means school wont be applying for SNA access for pupils

#4

There will be a small proportion of SNA posts held back, for allocation under exceptional review. But for most school, what you're allocated is it, it won't be increased within the two years even if need increases.

No individual pupils will be allocated access

#5

SNA will be a general pool to be allocated at the discretion of the Principal* based on care needs and a continuum of support (yes, another one)

*Yay, an incredibly large responsibility I'm not trained for added to the already unmanageable role.

#6

The positives

It ensures some job security for SNAs (2 years minimum)

It looks to get rid of 0.75/0.83 allocations and stick with full time or 0.5.

It removes the need for professional reports for access to SNA (big caveat here)

#7

While not needing professional reports may be more equitable to the pupils in theory, it removes any support for the school in identifying care needs. A principal is not qualified to identify and prioritise care needs (well, I'm not anyway).

#8

In practical terms, it means most will still fall back on reports that outline care needs we can evidence.

My biggest issue with it, is it takes what was a neutral process of allocation by an outside agency, and now makes it principal vs parent

#9

Because allocation won't be sufficient to meet need. It never is. So now, you have parents who are fighting for the needs of their child to be met (as they should), and now the person they have to fight to convince of this is the principal and the school.

#10

It means instead of parents viewing the school as a teammate to meet the needs of the child, the natural reaction will now to view the school/principal as a barrier standing in the way of your child getting support they need. They're deciding to prioritise someone else

#11

Then there are children who don't have someone to fight their corner. If there is a child with a parent strongly advocating for them to convince you of the care needs, vs an equally high needs child who doesn't have that advocacy, who is most likely to get support?

#12

Not purposefully or intentionally, principals will do their utmost to be fair and impartial, but that's what the NCSE could do. Be impartial. Relationships weren't at risk.

Principals don't have that luxury.

#13

That's the Frontloading.

The other key aspects are

Increased NEPS support

Funding and access to therapy services.

Regional supports from OTs, SLTs & Behaviour therapists. My understanding is there will be 2 of each per region, with 5 regions in the country

#14

While welcome, as any increased supports are, the tiny numbers involved don't give me much hope of any significant impact.

Maybe someone from the pilot could expand on this, but the numbers will be significantly more spread out.

#15

There's also talk of national training programme for SNAs, but the UCD course not being accredited and the limited places means I don't have a huge amount of optimism around this aspect either.

#16

This model is separate from the New Brunswick total inclusion idea that's been floated. Parts certainly come from the same theory, but for now this is what's being proposed.

This is a very brief overview, jump in with ideas or questions and I can try to figure more out

#17

Add on:

This applies to mainstream only. It doesn't apply to special classes or special schools SNA allocation.

Once confusion could be how this works of you have a (or multiple) 0.83 allocation for your special class. Could complicate deciding what SNA goes where a bit

#18

Latest Threads Unrolled: