Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this extremely important matter and I welcome the Minister of State. I am very concerned about what is happening in Mayo, which seems to have been particularly hard hit in respect of the DEIS review. Approximately 25 schools are affected in the county, which is above the national average. I am concerned about how the review was carried out.

No one would begrudge any second level school that is included in the DEIS scheme, but there is now total disbelief that so many second level schools in Mayo, which are experiencing severe deprivation, have been excluded. It is obvious that, on the basis of the criteria used in the evaluation process, the schools that were most successful in retaining their pupils were penalised for their success. I do not believe the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, could possibly understand the crisis she has engineered for so many Mayo schools. The result will be highly divisive for education and will result in larger class sizes in many cases.

There are 16 schools on Achill, all of which are disadvantaged. All are included in the DEIS programme except one. There are 13 national schools and two post-primary schools included, one of which is Scoil Damhnait. Two of the schools are side by side, yet one is excluded. Nevertheless, all the pupils in the island's national schools, which are feeding the two secondary schools, are deprived. There is, therefore, something very strange occurring and the valuation process must be flawed.

A similar situation obtains in Belmullet. There are 22 schools in this region and one, a second-level school, is excluded. I urge the Minister of State to re-examine this matter. Does disadvantage stop just because one goes to a secondary school? It does not. The loss to one particular school is very significant. It will lose a school liaison position, a disadvantaged area post, which is the equivalent of one teacher in hours; and disadvantaged area funding, which can amount to €30,000 or even €600,000 if one considers all the losses involved in respect of the programme. One should bear in mind that the access programme can make a major difference in allowing leaving certificate students to reach third level. If classified as disadvantaged for any project, a school can get 95% support, as opposed to 90% in other circumstances. How can a school being fed by all the national schools, which are deprived and recognised as such by the Department, suddenly be regarded as not deprived?

It is a question of supporting parents without a tradition of education to make their boys and girls realise its value. Designation would imply extra grant aid for the students chosen, and the points total is topped. There are homework groups and home visits. It is a matter of bearing in mind the human face of the schools and of allowing those with no tradition of education to reach third level. It is a matter of keeping them in school and encouraging them to aspire to educational excellence.

The difficulty is that the schools that have excelled are the ones being punished, and this constitutes a very serious issue. The Minister has said no school will lose disadvantaged status funding but this is not the case because there are all sorts of ideas to share liaison officers, etc. There is clearly a major problem. The DEIS initiative is being rolled out by the Department of Education and Science and it is fundamentally flawed in its attempt to address educational disadvantage. The criteria chosen to identify disadvantage are not weighted to identify intrinsic disadvantage, but instead use student retention and attainment levels as the main indicators. Consequently, the scheme has the potential to reward dysfunctionality in schools and penalise cultures of expectation and success.

There are fundamental questions for the Minister to answer. What will be the position of the schools that are losing out from September 2007? What was the rationale for selecting data that is so seriously outdated, particularly in regard to medical cards? Why choose a set of indicators that are so out of line with international practice? Will all future initiatives targeting educational disadvantage be focused solely on DEIS schools?

A fair review of the excluded schools is necessary and it should use agreed and internationally approved criteria. In the meantime, in order to be eligible for all disadvantage-targeted benefits, all excluded schools should retain their disadvantaged status. The Department should confirm this in writing to the schools affected. The current situation is unacceptable and I urge the Minister of State to examine the matter.

See this speech in context