Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Seán Haughey (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the Deputy about these schools. Delivering equality of opportunity in schools, DEIS, the action plan for educational inclusion, provides for a standardised system for identifying levels of disadvantage and a new integrated school support programme, SSP. DEIS will bring together and build upon a number of existing interventions in schools with a concentrated level of disadvantage.

The process of identifying schools for participation in DEIS was managed by the Educational Research Centre, ERC, on behalf of the Department of Education and Science and supported by quality assurance work co-ordinated through the Department's regional offices and the inspectorate. The ERC's overall approach was guided by the definition of educational disadvantage in the Education Act 1998. Section 32(9) of that Act states "the impediments to education arising from social or economic disadvantage which prevent students from deriving appropriate benefit from education in schools".

In the case of second level schools, the Department supplied the ERC with centrally-held data from the post-primary pupils and State Examinations Commission databases. Based on an analysis of this data, the variables used to determine eligibility for inclusion in the school support programme were as follows: medical card data for junior certificate candidates, including junior certificate school programme candidates; junior certificate retention rates by school; junior certificate exam results aggregated to school level, expressed as an overall performance scale, OPS, score and this was based on each student's performance in the seven subjects in which he or she performed best; and leaving certificate retention rates by school.

The identification process was in line with international best practice and had regard to and employed the existing and most appropriate data sources available. A review mechanism was put in place to address the concerns of schools that did not qualify for inclusion in DEIS but regarded themselves as having a level of disadvantage which was of a scale sufficient to warrant their inclusion in the programme. The review process operated under the direction of an independent person, charged with ensuring that all relevant identification processes and procedures were properly followed in the case of schools applying for a review. The closing date for receipt of review applications was 31 March 2006. The group submitted a report and the review is now concluded. Schools that applied for a review were informed of the outcome in August 2006.

The schools referred to by the Deputy applied for review but were not successful. The Department of Education and Science is considering putting in place separate arrangements to address exceptional situations arising up to the time of the next identification process which will be held in 2009-10. These arrangements will apply to new schools, including those created through amalgamation, opening in 2005-06 or thereafter. The arrangements may also apply to schools located in certain communities that have experienced significant socio-economic decline since the commencement of DEIS. Consideration will be given to such changes at the mid point between the 2005-06 and 2009-10 identification processes, namely, in 2007-08.

Schools which have not qualified for inclusion in the DEIS initiative and which are receiving additional resources, both human and financial, under pre-existing schemes and programmes for addressing disadvantage, are retaining these supports for 2006-07. Nine of the ten schools referred to by the Deputy are among the schools receiving additional resources under pre-existing schemes and programmes and they are retaining these supports for 2006-07. After that, these schools can be assured that they will continue to receive support in line with their level of disadvantage.

Almost €170,000 in financial resources was provided to the schools referred to by the Deputy for the school year 2006-07. These resources should be used for activities to address educational disadvantage among the schools' pupils. School principals will administer the financial resources locally and it is a matter for the individual schools to decide how best to apply the funding in providing activities to address educational disadvantage among their pupils.

Under DEIS the Department recently announced the provision of 80 new posts to add to the 370 posts already in place in order to extend the home school community liaison service, HSCL, to any of the DEIS schools that do not currently have the service. In addition, all schools will continue to receive HSCL services after 2006-07. HSCL services will continue to be provided to some 650 schools — 370 primary and 282 second level. However, following a full review of HSCL clustering arrangements by the Department later this year, levels of service may be varied in some schools to reflect their levels of disadvantage and size and to facilitate local HSCL co-ordinators working with families of disadvantaged children across both primary and second level.

As a result of the identification process and subsequent review, 68 primary schools and eight second level schools in Mayo have been included in the school support programme under the DEIS initiative and nearly 20% of all schools in the rural strand of the programme are in Mayo.

I thank the Deputy again for raising this matter.