SNA review process 25/26 - Summary of Guidelines and Thoughts - A Grim Read

The new guidelines for SNA review for 25/26 have been released. You can find them here along with other documentation Guidelines for SNA review.

Key changes:

• The guidelines apply to all mainstream and special schools. Previously there were separate processes for mainstream and special classes and schools and the process has now been unified and standardised. 
• For the first time, SNA allocation in mainstream schools with special classes are now one unified allocation, with redeployment between mainstream and special class required based on need. So, for example, if you need an additional SNA in your Autism class currently, it is expected that you would first take them from mainstream. 
• Any applications for review are now conducted on a whole school needs-based analysis, and SENOs will look at the option of redeployment from mainstream to special class or vice versa as the primary approach. 
• Applications are open for 6 weeks ONLY for school-led reviews.  You cannot apply as needed throughout the year as previously. After that, only NCSE-led reviews will happen. Applications for review are open from 15th September to 24th October.
• If after review, school led or ncse led, the decision is to reduce SNA allocation, that will not take place until the end of the 25/26 school year. The SNA redeploment panel will be active and in place at that point.

The Review Process

School Led Review 

• 15th Sept-24th Oct for school led reviews
• They are for newly presenting primary care needs in the school
• It can be a full review, a focused review or an admin review
• Very limited criteria outlined under 'will be considered for additional SNA support'
  • Schools with no/limited SNA allocations
  • New complex medical needs
  • New physical complex needs
  • Significant number of students with complex needs at level 3 on the care needs register (worth noting we were told almost no children should be on level 3 bar very complex needs including medical or physical needs. 
• Information on observation and it's purpose outlined and situations where observation won't happen.
• Significant change from 24/25 and the outcome is now a 2 step process. The original idea last year of SENO being able to grant some additional support directly is gone. Now all decisions go from SENO to the review panel and the decision is made and communicated by the review panel.
• Pre consultation meeting no longer needed, it's at SENO discretion. 
• No longer a requirement for psychological reports. They were previously mandatory for Special Class above SERC reviews.
• Documentation
  • Consent forms
  • Support Plans
  • Medical or care plans
  • Professional reports (if available and relevant)
  • Inclusive reflection practice document *New* 
    • The first requirement here is staff being familiar with Relate, which there has been little time to explore or embed. This is a barrier. 

NCSE led reviews

• Process is the same. NCSE will focus on (but not limited to)
  • Schools not reviewed in last 2 years
  • Schools with above SERC in special classes
  • Schools where a number of students have moved from mainstream to special classes

Behaviours of Concern

There is a section on behaviours of concern which tries to negate SNA role in supporting behavioural care needs. It specifies that a whole school review can only be initiated where behaviour indicates an underlying primary care needs, and gives the example of toileting or feeding. 

Other bits

• Redeployment scheme being developed
• Option to appeal to NAPSA (NCSE Appeals Panel for SNA allocations). Appeals must be submitted within 10 working days of getting the outcome of the appeal. 
• There is an independent Appeals Advisory Committee where a school feels the appeals process wasn't followed appropriately. 

Trina's thoughts

•  This was a stark read. There is an incredibly worrying disconnect between the reality of schools on the ground and what the NCSE view as qualifying as worthy of support. 
• I worry for the many Principals reading this in a difficult September with the level of needs presenting being already overwhelming to them. 
• The document is written to put people off applying. To get Principals to rethink if there's any point, or if they're risking getting a cut when they're already not coping.
• The shrinking of timeline is infuriating. Children's needs do not work on a timeline. Schools are only getting a sense of the Junior Infants that have joined us and now they have to potentially rush to put in a review in case the need level doesn't settle. Instead of waiting until after midterm as you'd often do, because schools are a different place after midterm. Who's going to take that chance now though? What happens when a child with complex needs transfer mid year, as is common? Someone else with complex needs loses out? Who is at the centre here?
• The Relate document is excellent, and encouraging engagement is important, but making it essentially a condition of applying for a review is absolutely premature. There is a 6 week window for review. Relate is fresh out of the box and training on it has been minimal. This is asking for a tick the box rush job rather than actual engagement. Mandating implementation before providing any reasonable level of professional development or support is a quick way to make people resent it rather than value it. It's wildly inappropriate.

Reading this, it feels as though children and their needs are treated as an inconvenience. Instead of supporting schools to meet children where they are, the system seems to be pulling support away or making it harder to access. I fear the impact on principals who are already stretched and struggling. I fear the impact on parents when schools can't appropriately support their children. Mostly I fear the impact on our children.

The message these guidelines send is not one of partnership or child-centred support but one of gatekeeping and rationing.