Debate contribution: Special Educational Needs Coordinators

Debate contribution by Mr Nick Mathison on 28 April 2026.

MLA

Mr Nick Mathison

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

28 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Special Educational Needs Coordinators

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5510320

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. There has been a really constructive tone in the Chamber. We have landed in a rare space where there seems to be agreement, at least on the substantive issues in the motion. The conversation expanded into the wider issues around SEN reform, where there might not be complete alignment, but, even on those issues, as far as I could tell, there was a sense that everyone in the Chamber acknowledges that there is a need to come together. If there are concerns about the legalities of reform or the pace of change, it seems that there is an openness to engage. I certainly welcome that. Our motion was deliberately narrow. It is not that all of the other issues that Members wanted to raise are not important. We had a range of issues raised in the debate. Peter Martin raised his concerns about maintaining the status quo with regard to how we deliver SEN services; Jon Burrows looked at the rising level of complexity in and demand for SEN services; and other Members highlighted the crucial role of classroom assistants. I could keep going on the different issues raised and levels of emphasis in the debate. I want to be clear: it is not that those issues are not important. We brought the motion because, to quote Peter Martin, if he does not mind, SENCOs are, in many cases, "the glue" that holds the SEN services together in our schools. A SENCO is, as others have said, the "go-to person" in the school. They are also the go-to person for external agencies. You only need to spend a few minutes in the company of a group of SENCOs to hear the level of their dedication and insight into the complexity of needs in their school settings; their level of understanding of the challenges that parents face when navigating the system; their appetite; and their ability to engage with reform. However, you will also hear their realism about the level of challenge brought about by the current level of resources. SENCOs are critical to any delivery of SEN services and reform, so our motion was deliberately narrow. We wanted to acknowledge the evidence that we heard at the Education Committee and the evidence that colleagues and I have heard from our local SENCO clusters, which have articulated so clearly the level of challenge they are facing and the level of pressure that they are under. The outworking of that is the concern that we have a workforce that is crucial to the system but feels that it is on the brink of being completely overwhelmed and not being able to cope. We hear schools say that when a SENCO vacancy comes up, nobody applies for it. It takes a serious level of arm-twisting to get people to take the role. SENCOs talk about being afraid to go off sick, because they worry about the impact that doing so would have on their school setting. We have SENCOs — I will not use names because they might get in trouble with their unions — who have said to me that they have a laugh when the phrase "action short of strike" is used, because, if there is one person in a school who cannot take action short of strike, it is a SENCO. The whole thing would fall apart around them if they did. That is an unsustainable picture.

The motion was narrow, but that is not to say that Alliance is not up for the debate on wider SEN reform: we absolutely are. I need to declare an interest, as my wife works for an organisation that was a co-signatory to the Children's Law Centre letter. There is a need for the system to engage with the concerns that have been raised, but we have a space where we can open up a constructive conversation. The consultation on the enhanced support model is still open, and, when it closes, that will be the appropriate time for the system to pause, take a breath, get the right stakeholders around the table, reflect on what comes through in the consultation, deal with concerns around legality, deal with the pace of change and ensure that we get all the key stakeholders pulling in the same direction. That is what I would like to see, because I do not think that a single person in the Assembly thinks that the system is currently fit for purpose. I do not think that a single person is articulating that we should change nothing. There may be different levels of emphasis on how we do that, but the need for change is vital, because our children who rely on SEN support services are being failed. We need to address that. I genuinely take hope from the debate, because there is a sense that all of us, whatever the different levels of emphasis might be, want to move in that direction. Returning to the substantive content of the motion. I will record a couple of thank-yous to the SENCOs whom I have engaged with. I thank the cluster groups that I have engaged with, specifically those in Newtownards, north Down and Castlereagh, as well as the individual SENCOs who have contacted me to share their experiences. That engagement has been absolutely invaluable, as has their honesty and willingness to engage. Sometimes, those engagements have felt like therapy sessions. It is a workforce that really feels on the brink, and I do not say that flippantly. SENCOs often refer to those engagements in those terms, and I know that my colleague Michelle and other members of the Education Committee who have engaged with their local SENCO workforce feel that those engagements have been absolutely critical in understanding the ongoing pressure in our schools.

I thank the Member for the intervention. Yes, it is absolutely essential that the finances are put in place to ensure that the appropriate level of release is delivered. It is really important that we get assurances around that.

Give me one moment, and I will give way. Anyone who engages with groups of SENCOs will know that the disparity in the approaches taken in schools is striking, and, in schools where the needs are clearly at a higher level and more complex, some of those SENCOs get less release time. A lot of that is to do with the budgetary position of the school, and schools should not be placed in that position.

I thank the Member for the intervention. We get into dangerous territory when we have Ministers saying to other Ministers, "You need to surrender your budget so that I can do this thing". We could go round in a vicious circle with that all day long, and every Minister would make the case. It is for the Education Minister to make his case to the Finance Minister for the investment that he needs, and I hope that the Finance Minister would be sympathetic to that. I am conscious that I am short on time, so I want to put this point on record. Claire McGowan and Anita Stewart, who gave evidence to the Education Committee, have been referenced. They did that very bravely. A lot of people would be very nervous about coming to a public forum like the Education Committee to effectively raise concerns about the working conditions that they are operating in and put that on the public record with their employer — the EA and the Department — watching. They deserve huge credit. Their engagement with the Committee has led to a positive engagement with the Department on the issues, so they really deserve credit. As time is short, I turn to the asks in the motion. While it is nice to have the warm feeling in the room when everybody agrees — when we debate our non-binding motions, everybody can do that — I am a little concerned at the Minister's comments. There was no specific commitment to a review of SENCO workload, and I would like to have heard that. I would like to pursue that through Committee and other channels, because SENCOs were really clear when we engaged with and consulted them on the text of the motion and what their challenges were. They were clear on the sense that there needed to be a real system overview of all the different factors that were coming to bear and impacting on their workload, how they can be mitigated and how SENCOs can be better supported. I would like to have heard a commitment on that front, and we will continue to look for that. I think and hope that SENCOs will take heart from the debate today. I do not suggest in any way that a non-binding motion will solve anybody's problems overnight, but at least we have agreement. That gives us a platform to push for accountability to ensure that there is delivery on addressing the SENCO workload. A much wider debate is needed. We are coming to that critical point: when the rubber hits the road, what will it really look like when we want to deliver SEN reform? I am clear: we will not deliver meaningful SEN reform and will not meet the needs of children unless we support SENCOs to do their jobs. They are critical to the whole system, and we need to support them.

1,578 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:31 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification