From SNA Freeze to 2025/26: A Preventable Crisis

Why this school year’s SNA shock didn’t have to happen

The disruption we’re seeing this school year didn’t have to unfold this way.

The SNA reductions.
The 190 schools affected.
The media backlash.
The pause on issuing further review letters while “consultation” takes place.

None of this was sudden. And none of it was inevitable.

This crisis was built gradually, year by year, through decisions to defer reform, freeze allocations and avoid transparent, phased redeployment. Every year we spoke out, we questioned, we challenged. Often it felt like shouting into a voice.

By the time the system began to move again, the imbalance had been allowed to harden.

2025/26 didn’t create the problem, it exposed it.

So, let's break down the timeline. 

2020: The “Temporary” Freeze

In April 2020, Circular 0030/2020 confirmed that the new 'Frontloaded SNA Allocation Model' wouldn’t proceed as planned due to Covid.

Instead:

• Mainstream SNA allocations were frozen.

• Allocations rolled over automatically.

• No school would receive less.

• Schools could apply for additional SNAs through Exceptional Review.

• Schools were told to review and reprioritise internally so that those with the greatest care needs received the greatest support.

It was framed as a one year interim measure. It didn’t stay that way.

2021: Deferred Again

In May 2021, the Frontloaded Model was deferred for another year.

• Allocations rolled over again.
• No school would receive less again.
• Exceptional Review remained the only meaningful route to increase allocation. 

What was supposed to be temporary was quietly becoming structural.

What That Meant

Freezing allocations sounds protective.

• It protects posts.
• It prevents sudden reductions.

But it also suspends re-allocation.

In a needs-based system, re-alocation or some form of allocation model isn’t optional, it’s necessary.

Needs shift, enrolments grow, communities change and student profiles become more complex.

If allocations don’t move with need, imbalance builds. As a developing school this was exceptionally challenging with annual or nulti-annual SNA reviews, with enormous paperwork levels, becoming the norm.

Growing and developing schools relied solely on exceptional reviews. Established allocations remained static and pressure accumulated.

For years.

The Warning Signs Were There

I posted about this issue annually. Many others did too. Patrons advocated for developing schools throughout. Nothing changed, no one listened.

Last year, the first cuts started to filter through. The promised SNA re-deployment scheme didn't materialise and Forsa negotiated with the Department that the cuts would only apply from the end of 25/26 school year when the re-deployment scheme was in place. In the background the SNA Workforce Development Unit worked on many aspects of the SNA review, from contract, to circular to supports and training. We await the results of their work.

At the start of this school year, I wrote “SNA Review Process 25/26: Summary of Guidelines and Thoughts – A Grim Read”, setting out what the revised review framework meant in practice and why it felt significant.

You can read that here: https://www.fromtinyacorns.ie/blog/sna-review-process-25-26-summary-of-guidelines-and-thoughts-a-grim-read

The language may have suggested routine review, but the structure signalled something more substantial. It pointed towards narrowing interpretation and a significantly more challenging route to get an increase via exceptional review. 

When concerns were raised, we were told nothing fundamental had changed. Thousands of people emailed, shared and advocated. INTO demanded emergency review and advocacy groups warned of the risks. We shouted and shouted. 

They said: 

• That the criteria hadn’t changed.
• That interpretation hadn’t shifted.
• That this was simply 'clarification'.

After the initial pause and 'reassurance', I wrote again in “Advocacy on the New SNA Review: An Experience in Gaslighting”.

That post is here:
https://www.fromtinyacorns.ie/blog/advocacy-on-the-new-sna-review-an-experience-in-gaslighting 

That piece wasn’t about disagreement. It was about the experience of being told that what was clearly changing in practice wasn’t changing at all. The media, the shouting, the backlash, the political support and the advocacy from many powerful groups led nowhere. The media moved on, and the changed review process continued. 

2025/26: The Shift Becomes Visible

This school year is where the consequences of those shifts became undeniable.

The review process now operates differently in practice.

The interpretation of need has narrowed. Secondary care needs are seem as not relevant. Level 1 primary care needs are designated as a class teacher responsibility. The focus has tightened around primary care needs in a way that doesn’t reflect the complexity schools are managing daily.

At the same time, the SNA deployment toolkit reframes what SNAs are expected to do. On paper, the model looks clear. In real classrooms, it doesn’t match what teachers and SNAs are dealing with.

We were told this wasn’t a change.

But schools began receiving review outcomes that felt very different.

Some didn’t just lose one SNA, some lost several. In some cases, up to six.

After six years without transparent, gradual redeployment, 'adjustment' arrived all at once.

That’s why 2025/26 feels like shock.

The Political Pattern

The sequence now feels familiar:

• Review letters issued.
• Reductions highlighted publicly.
• Media backlash.
• A pause announced pending consultation.

At the same time, we’re told that overall SNA numbers are increasing. That 1,600 additional SNAs have been announced. That investment is at record levels.

Those statements may well be true.

But without transparent breakdown of where those posts are going, mainstream schools experiencing reductions feel like they’re being asked to ignore their own reality.

You can increase total numbers and still destabilise individual schools if redistribution is abrupt and unclear.

This Was Preventable

Some level of redeployment was always going to be necessary. A needs-based system can’t stay frozen indefinitely.

But redeployment could have been gradual. It could have been transparent. It could have been phased and clearly explained.

Instead, we had:

Freeze.
Deferral.
Freeze again.
Years of imbalance.
Narrowing interpretation in practice.
Then concentrated review and significant cuts. 

When movement is delayed for long enough, eventual correction won’t feel like reform. It will feel like loss.

This school year didn’t have to happen this way.

The imbalance could have been addressed earlier.
Redeployment could have been phased.
Criteria shifts could have been acknowledged openly.
Data could have been published clearly.

2025/26 isn’t the cause of the crisis. It’s the consequence of decisions made, and decisions avoided.

That’s why this is a preventable crisis.

And until there’s honest acknowledgement of how we got here, we risk repeating the same cycle again.

What happens next will shape the future of special education in this country. This is the point in time, the fork in the road.

If what comes of this is just a pause until it dies down and then continue as normal, then I genuinely fear for the possibility of any impact from any advocacy going forward. They've found the magic formula to make it irrelevant. Just wait a while until media and TDs get bored and do what you wanted anyway. Eventually people on the ground get too tired to shout anymore. 

This is it everyone. Pick where you're going to stand when history looks back on this.