Dr. Katriona O'Sullivan:

No, they did not. I was further peeved to see the DEIS scheme being reformed, which invested more money and expanded the scheme. I have worked in two universities that have developed really meaningful programmes and have worked with adult and community education programmes that have evidence-based activities that do change the lives of children. I have had meetings with people who implement the DEIS scheme and have tried to pitch to them ideas to change what is happening in these schools. What we have had to do is source philanthropic funding for activities we knew were really meaningful for children in DEIS schools. Over the past four years, I have worked in over 20 DEIS schools where the activities aimed at uplift are funded by Google and other organisations because there was no space to change what was happening.

Senator Ruane asked why the current systems are not working. I have many views on that. First, when things are found to be wrong, there is an unwillingness to shift. The leaving certificate applied was referred to. We are having conversations here that not only have been ongoing for 30 years but which sociologists have been having for 100 years and yet, we still have the same problems. People buy into policies and it is very difficult for them to change after massive investment has gone into them. The DEIS scheme is a perfect example of that. The review shows there were no gains.

Another thing which is very problematic is that there is a funding model for higher education and school systems, along with community and adult education, that is competitive. We are not facilitated to work together in a way that involves joined-up thinking to solve the problem but instead have sectors that are competing for funding. We are hiding solutions from one other because we do not want other groups to perform better than us. We compete for publicity in the media, to get Deputies and Senators to present our awards and show everyone how great we are because we are in a model where we are not funded equally and we are not forced to cross-pollinate and share successes and good resources. Nor is the competition only in higher education. We see it in league tables where schools are in competition with one other. I have even seen it in DEIS schools, where there is competition to prove how bad they are in order to remain in the funding scheme, so sometimes they hide their successes to stay in a system that celebrates being a failure.

Another of the many issues I have has been showcased here, namely, the reactive nature of the system. Currently, lone parents are the buzzword. There has been a recent report on lone parents. Maynooth University has recently been awarded programme for access to higher education, PATH 1 funding for a return to teaching programme because we need to diversify teacher education. Trends emerge but as the trends change, the other groups we have been targeting and trying to shift and help are forgotten, such as Traveller activities, which are moved. Sometimes, there is a reaction in policy to what is in the media and what is current, without stopping to ask ourselves what have we done in the past and how can that transfer into what we are doing now. In the PATH 1 fund, we are required to reserve places for lone parents. Previously they were not specified, but now we have to give them places. That is good, it is recognition that this group needs to be targeted, but it means that other groups are no longer targeted.

My final complaint is that we have no funding for evaluation in higher education or in the education system generally. The Government funds institutions such as the ESRI and the Educational Research Centre, ERC, to undertake that sort of thing but there are limits to what they can do. That research is often descriptive and sometimes is supportive of policy. The national access plan for equity has five strands. Educational disadvantage is not only early school leaving, the definition also relates to progression into higher and further education. The plan states that we should be researching and evaluating and establishing quality activities. There is little or no funding for research. Any access office I have been to has no scope to evaluate what it is doing and nor has any school I have visited. We have no evidence base of what works. If I have a good message and a good way of promoting it, that usually is what works.