Lundy Model Child Participation Ireland: What It Means for SEN Advocacy

Schools talk about "student voice" the same way politicians talk about "listening." The phrase is deployed freely; the practice is far more rare. The Lundy Model of Child Participation gives parents a framework to hold schools accountable to something specific rather than something vague — and in the context of SEN advocacy in Ireland, that specificity is one of the few tools available.

The model was developed by Professor Laura Lundy at Queen's University Belfast and is explicitly endorsed by Tusla (the Child and Family Agency) and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. It is directly relevant to how schools should be constructing and reviewing School Support Plans.

The Four Elements

The Lundy Model proposes that Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — the right to be heard — only becomes meaningful when four conditions are met in sequence:

Space — The child must be given a safe, inclusive opportunity to form and express a view. This is about the environment, not just the invitation. For a non-verbal child or an autistic child who communicates differently, "space" requires accessible formats: visual schedules, AAC devices, written questions in advance, or a trusted support person present. An offer to participate that requires verbal fluency in a formal meeting is not meaningful space.

Voice — Once space is created, the child's view must actually be facilitated — not extracted, not inferred by the teacher. The child's own words, symbols, or communication matter. Voice is about facilitation, not interpretation. A summary of "what we think Charlie needs" is not the same as Charlie's expressed preferences documented in the SSP.

Audience — The child's views must be heard by someone who has the authority to act on them. In a school context, this means the views reach the principal, the SEN coordinator, and the SENO — not just the classroom assistant who may be sympathetic but cannot change allocation or timetabling decisions.

Influence — The child's views must be taken into account when decisions are made. This is the element that most frequently collapses. It does not mean the child gets everything they ask for. It means the decision-maker explicitly engages with the view and can explain why it was or was not reflected in the outcome. If the SSP review meeting produces a plan identical to last year's with no reference to what the child expressed, Influence has not occurred.

Why It Matters for SSP and PPP Reviews

The NCSE Toolkit for the Deployment of SNA Support (2024) explicitly references the importance of incorporating the student's voice into the Personal Pupil Plan. The NEPS Continuum of Support guidelines place parental and student involvement at the centre of the School Support Plan process.

When a school completes an SSP review without any documented evidence that the child's views were sought, that is a gap you can name and address. It is not merely best practice — it is an expectation embedded in the frameworks schools are required to follow.

In practice, this means you can write to the school before any SSP or PPP review and request:

• Documentation of how the school will create "space" for your child to express their views prior to the review meeting
• Confirmation of the method being used (especially if your child is non-verbal or communicates through AAC)
• A summary of your child's expressed views to be included in the written SSP or PPP
• An explicit record of how those views have been taken into account in the decisions made

If the school cannot answer these questions or provides purely tokenistic answers ("we always ask the children"), this is the foundation of a follow-up complaint to the Board of Management.

Practical Application at School Meetings

Arrive at SSP review meetings with a written summary of what your child has told you or communicated about school. Frame it explicitly: "Under the Lundy Model, we want to document Charlie's expressed views about [the sensory environment / withdrawal sessions / the lunchtime routine]."

Ask directly: "How was this input gathered and how is it reflected in the targets being set today?"

If you are told the child's views are not relevant because the child has limited communication capacity, this fundamentally misunderstands the Space and Voice elements of the model — both are specifically designed for children with communication differences. Make that correction in writing after the meeting.

Connecting the Model to Legal Accountability

The Lundy Model is not legislation in Ireland. It cannot be enforced through a Section 29 appeal or a WRC complaint on its own. But it connects directly to frameworks that can be enforced.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is incorporated into Irish policy through multiple instruments. The Education Act 1998 requires schools to "promote the moral, spiritual, social and personal development of students" — which is difficult to do when a school has no documented understanding of the student's own perspective. And since November 30, 2024, when Ireland ratified the Optional Protocol to the UNCRPD, systemic failures to center disabled children's voices and participation in educational decisions can form part of a complaint to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Lundy Model gives you the language. The documentation of its absence gives you the paper trail.

For a complete set of template letters requesting Lundy Model compliance in SSP reviews, the full escalation pathway from school to BOM to external bodies, and a record-keeping system for tracking student voice documentation, see the Ireland Special Ed Advocacy Playbook.

See more Ireland guides →