SET Allocations — could we all be wrong?
The SET Allocations Debacle raged on last week as the Department of Education tried everything they could to bury the ongoing protests from parents, schools and advocacy groups through spin and statistics. When none of that seemed to be working and faced with a petition from over 700 primary school principals through the National Principals’ Forum (NPF), things took a baffling twist when a joint statement was released from the IPPN, the NAPD (second level version of IPPN) and the National Parents’ Council. Before I go on, I think it’s important to share one important statistic of how many principals were consulted by the NPF and the IPPN.
The column on the left shows how many principals gave their feedback to the NPF regarding the SET Allocations. The column on the right hows the same data except to the IPPN.
In fact, this is probably the only statistic worth bearing in mind as I go through the IPPN’s bizarre response to the campaigns from lobby groups such as NPF but also Neurodiversity Ireland, AsIAm, Inclusion Ireland and Down’s Syndrome Ireland. There have been numerous posts from individual principals and from collective groups of local principals saying the same thing. In any case, here is the link to the full statement from the IPPN et al:
The statement states that through the commentary about the SET Allocations, there have been a number of “misconceptions.” Being careful not to name any group in particular for fear of giving them recognition, the IPPN categorically state:
It is important to be clear that children with complex needs have not been excluded from the allocation of hours that schools received.
Let’s put this fallacy to bed.
From 2017 to 2022, the SET Allocations were calculated under 5 criteria: enrollment, literacy and numeracy scores, complex needs data, gender, and DEIS status.
This year the allocations were calculated on 3 criteria: enrollment, literacy and numeracy scores, and DEIS status.
The Department of Education even admitted themselves that they dropped Complex Needs as a criteria because they didn’t get the data from the HSE. Instead they decided to increase the weighting of Literacy and Numeracy scores to make up for that data.
I’m not sure if the IPPN are so out of touch that they don’t understand that children with complex needs can, and often do, score highly in literacy and numeracy tests, and using a blunt metric of literacy and numeracy scores leaves children with complex needs that perform well academically devoid of supports.
Now, of course, you’ll hear the famous line:
Pupils with the greatest levels of need should have access to the greatest level of support
This will be used to appease parents of children with complex needs because schools will prioritise their children if their needs are greater than, let’s say a child with a standardised literacy score, or STEN, of 2; or a child with dyslexia that’s killing herself to get a STEN of 4; or a child that might have a low STEN score but has no behavioural needs.
When you hear the statement that the greatest levels of need should have access to the greatest level of support, that really means that schools have to choose which children that need support do not receive it. All of the organisations use this — from NEPS to the NCSE to the Department of Education. And now the IPPN.
The statement goes on to explain how they come to this conclusion using frankly baffling analysis and language, including a lovely word, which has to be quoted:
Given that the revised allocations model is now underpinned by more accurate data provided by schools, it is hoped that the quantum of hours allocated to schools will better enable children with additional and complex needs to achieve and thrive in their mainstream settings.
A quantum — so baffling, they used it three times in their statement! So, what is a quantum?
A quantum is a word usually used in physics rather than in teacher allocations. It’s a weird word to use in a statement and not one that an average person would use, never mind three times. My favourite definition of quantum, however, was from the Cambridge dictionary which is:
the smallest amount or unit of something, especially energy
It could equally define the IPPN’s representation of its own members in this case.
I want to back up for a second because the word quantum distracted me slightly. The IPPN try to pull the same fast one that the Department of Education tried a few days beforehand saying that “the revised allocations model is now underpinned by more accurate data provided by schools.”
They fail to state what that data is so let me tell you.
It is enrollment figures and standardised literacy and numeracy scores. That’s it. There is no other data being used.
Despite this data being offered to the Department of Education, they have managed to not use it consistently. Anecdotally, speaking to principals around the country, very few people know how their allocation was calculated in the end. According to the Department of Education, they decided to adjust schools’ allocations if the changes meant siginificant changes. Read into that what you will.
However, for me, the only data that matters are the voices of those on the ground — the 1,400 parents that signed a petition in less than 3 days to support AsIAm, Inclusion Ireland and Down’s Syndrome Ireland’s call to pause the Allocations; the 700+ principals that signed a petition to demand complex needs be included and for principals to have the autonomy to input their needs into an existing DoE database; the almost 7,000 (and counting) people that signed a petition to reverse the SET Allocations; the various threads of Twitter/X from educators explaining how the allocations are going to affect their pupils.
Here are some examples of the latter below:
There are dozens of others. Sadly, rather than back up the voices of principals and parents, the IPPN and NPC (I’m excluding the NAPD as they’ve nothing to do with primary allocations, never mind the bizarre follow up statement from the JMB, also a second level quango) they decided to back the Department of Education. One has to wonder why. They all receive financial support from the Department — perhaps that’s a possibility?
Like the IPPN, The Department of Education have not directly responded to the petition from the NPF, and instead released another bizarre memo to the media. It attempts to undermine the petition by claiming that many of the signatures are not from principals and that most of the signatures are from schools that lost hours. Both of these claims simply prove that: a) they have way too much time on their hands; b) they clearly don’t get why principals signed the petition — it was nothing to do with the schools losing out, but about the system of allocations; c) what lengths they would go to to try and undermine principals in the most petty way possible.
Ultimately, their goal is to try and stop the discourse about SET Allocations in the public domain and hope that schools, parents and advocacy groups will run out of steam, and they will be able to push through these very flawed allocations. It’s up to us to keep up the energy and stand up for all of our children in the education system. Every cut to a child with additional needs is a cut to all children.
As for the IPPN, they’ve been sharing their vice-CEO’s article in the excellent Education Yearbook —titled “The Health and Wellbeing of
Irish School Leaders.”
In all areas of the research, the article shows burnout, stress, sleeping troubles, depressive symptoms, somatic stress and cognitive stress have all increased in principals from 2015 to 2022 and all of the conclusions state that it’s getting worse. Isn’t it ironic that when 700+ of their members make a public cry for help, their response was to tell them they were wrong?
