Many students with special needs at second level struggle to decide what to do after school and feel official sources of advice – such as career guidance, teachers and the CAO – are not helpful.
That is one of the findings of a study by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) and the National Council for Special Education which has tracked the experiences of young people with special educational needs or disabilities leaving second-level education.
The research is based on a representative sample of students with special needs through surveys and interviews with stakeholders in school and postschool settings, as well as other studies such as Growing Up in Ireland.
The volume of students with special needs at second level is growing quickly, as the prevalence rate for disabilities increases.
The study found that decision-making over what students did after school was heavily shaped by the type of school they attended.
In some schools, a focus on traditional higher education pushed students in that direction. Conversely, at schools in areas of social disadvantage, students felt funnelled into Post-Leaving Cert courses and apprenticeships rather than having access to the guidance they wanted for higher education.
Overall, the report shows young adults with disabilities had broadly positive experiences at school, although students with multiple conditions fared less well.
[ Give me a crash course in ... autism rates in IrelandOpens in new window ]
Students reported liking school’s social aspects, the feeling of belonging to a community, and their enjoyment of specific subjects.
While preparation for leaving school was generally perceived positively – particularly among young adults in special schools – the results suggest schools are doing less well in preparing students for adult life, independent living and career decisions.
Students, especially those reporting multiple conditions, were less likely to report being encouraged to pursue education or training and to feel adequately supported.
Most students surveyed either planned to continue their education or progress to work after leaving school.
Family background played a role in the likelihood of applying for post-school courses, with students from more highly educated families more likely to apply.
A much higher proportion of students from non-disadvantaged schools were more likely to avail of college access routes, which allow Leaving Cert candidates to secure higher education places on lower points requirements, for example.
Across special schools, a collaborative approach to getting ready for life after school was evident, with active parental engagement.
Young adults and parents generally appreciated the thorough HSE system for assessing the needs and interests of young adults preparing to leave, which typically began at the start of their school year.
[ Concern over rise in alleged assaults of special needs pupilsOpens in new window ]
While many wanted more work-placement opportunities, schools reported growing barriers to organising and supporting student work experience and placements.
In special schools, many school leavers successfully progressed to education and training programmes, but others experienced delayed or disrupted transitions.
School staff repeatedly spoke of challenges around personnel turnover in adult day services affecting the readiness of service providers to enrol young adults.
Selina McCoy, one of the report’s authors, said the study highlights challenges in resourcing and staffing adult day services and other programmes.
“This underscores the need for a comprehensive workforce plan in this sector, addressing issues like competitive compensation, professional development opportunities and improved working conditions to attract and retain qualified staff,” she said.
Eamonn Carroll, another of the report’s authors, said leaving school was a “watershed moment” for all young adults, a time of excitement and opportunity, but also of anxiety and risk.
“This study shows the importance of appropriate, high-quality pathways to disabled young people. Where these pathways are available and students are supported along them, we saw young people thrive. Where there were obstacles to participation, gaps in support or no opportunities at all, we saw young people disengaging, or being disengaged from, further or higher education, their pathways cut short.”
