It is now well documented that a key focus for the Department of Education and Youth and the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) for the 2026/2027 school year will be on providing additional special classes in post-primary schools. For the current Minister for Education it seems to be the only show in town, such is the political capital she has invested in this crusade.
In the past few weeks, school trustees were summoned to meet officials from the department and the NCSE and presented with a list of schools under their trusteeship that have no special class in place. Trustees were given one week to inform the department if they believed there were very exceptional circumstances that would prevent a special class from being accommodated in their school.
The basis for such meetings was recently provided for under the Education (Provision in Respect of Children with Special Educational Needs) Act 2022 and the commencement of the remaining sections of the Education Act 1998 as introduced by the Education (Admission to Schools) Act 2018.
These legislative changes gave sweeping powers to the Minister to command trustees and boards of management to comply with the NCSE and to make provision for special classes upon their direction.
READ MORE
Further diktats in the legislation included schools being instructed to include a statement in their annual admission policy that they will co-operate with the NCSE relating to the provision and operation of a special class, or classes, when directed to do so.
As a consequence of its political zeal to enforce an aspect of inclusion, the department has stripped schools of autonomy and professional agency. It has ridden roughshod over the authority of boards of management and supplanted trust in local governance with centralised direction. The department’s approach embodies an increasingly technocratic tendency to view schools as administrative units whose sole task is compliance.
This approach advances the language of rights but erodes the autonomy of those most directly tasked with realising those rights. This knee-jerk, reactive, politically motivated tactic of introducing sweeping, emergency-like legislation is precarious.
It perhaps illustrates what the late Justice Hardiman had in mind almost 15 years ago when, in a Supreme Court judgment (Dellway Investments Ltd v Nama, 2011), he spoke of the importance of the law in times like these “otherwise the cry of ‘emergency’ would be sufficient to set all rights aside at the whim of the Executive”. He held that “the cry of ‘emergency’ is an intoxicating one, producing an exhilarating freedom from the need to consider the rights of others and productive of a desire to repeat it again and again”.
While the need for inclusive education is beyond dispute, the manner in which the various relevant agencies are exerting influence requires critical vigilance. The involvement of patron bodies in transmitting directives to schools rather than supporting boards of management exercising their lawful independence risks reducing them to administrative conduits of political will.
If politicians are serious about their commitment to special classes then political rhetoric must be replaced with guaranteed sufficient resources, infrastructure and personnel
There is a danger that the department’s emergent approach is shaped less by the genuine requirements of students with additional needs and more by the political imperatives of ministers or parties seeking reputational gain and re-election.
Schools and boards of management must not become collateral actors in the pursuit of political capital. Any workable, sustainable inclusion strategy must be rooted in child-centred collaborative planning, respect for the statutory governance of boards of management, and open and transparent allocation of resources.
It is clear that the vision of an inclusive education system is easier to formulate in legislation than it is to enact in practice. You cannot impose a vision of inclusion without attending to the granular context in which schools operate. The school context is key.
To take just one example, in one post-primary sector (voluntary secondary schools), the Joint Managerial Body (JMB), in its Pre-Budget Submission 2026, emphatically argued that the successful achievement of our national ambitions around inclusion cannot be realised until the capacity bottlenecks at school level are eliminated.
The top four limiting factors to this vision of inclusion are:
- School Leadership and Management Capacity
- Special Education Teacher Capacity
- Special Educational Needs Co-ordination Capacity
- Infrastructural Capacity
It is also interesting to note that the highest budgetary priority of the JMB was the case for additional deputy principal capacity in post-primary schools. This is its key policy position in light of the changed legislative and regulatory environment emerging as a result of Government policy around the mainstreaming of virtually all students, including those with profound and enduring special educational needs, as well as the department’s own prioritisation of leadership for learning within a rapidly changing junior and senior cycle curricular landscape.
Under the Education Act 1998, schools are required “to make reasonable provision and accommodation for students with a disability or other special educational needs”. The key word here is ‘reasonable’. Trying to force schools to open a special class where they simply don’t have the space, for example, is not reasonable. Nor is it practical or safe.
[ Children in need of special school place promised ‘clear roadmaps’ by MinisterOpens in new window ]
Not having a special class is not a sign of a school’s non-commitment to inclusion. Urgent, serious, additional investment is required upfront before special classes can be opened in a number of schools. These classes must include, at the minimum, adequate toileting facilities and sensory spaces, and be appropriately adapted for students with various needs. A small storeroom at the back of the school is not the answer.
Political leaders had their opportunity to show their true commitment to special education through the amount of additional investment they provided in Budget 2026. Despite the rhetoric, schools are being asked to make do with a few crumbs thrown from the table. If politicians are serious about their commitment to special classes then political rhetoric must be replaced with guaranteed sufficient resources, infrastructure and personnel before the establishment of special classes. Anything less is an abdication of responsibility by the State and an erosion of trust in the very system it seeks to strengthen.
- John McHugh is principal of Ardscoil Rís in Dublin 9
