Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for selecting this matter. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, to the House.

Many schools in County Galway have recently lost the designation of disadvantaged. People at the coalface in those schools recognise they are being penalised for their excellence. This is true in the case of Mercy College, Woodford, County Galway, a second level school with an extraordinary commitment from staff, parents' association, board of management and students to achieving the highest possible educational standards. The school is in a CLÁR area which is in itself a recognition of this being a disadvantaged area and initiated by the Minister for Community, Gaeltacht and Rural Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív. It is also an area of declining population.

Under the old scheme of designated disadvantaged schools there were no indicators as to why certain schools were included, other than the fact that they were in disadvantaged areas. The benefits that those schools received and which they used with great effectiveness were extra capitation to spend at the discretion of the school, home-school community liaison officers, some teaching hours and extra guidance and other ancillary services.

In changing the criteria under the new DEIS scheme, the Minister has withdrawn some of those valuable support mechanisms and resources from the schools. If she is serious about commitment to the disadvantaged in education she has lost the plot in this instance. She stated that she has not written to the schools involved, but neither has she confirmed by letter that she is not withdrawing those supports. A home-school liaison officer in a school can be the means of keeping children at school and the withdrawal of this service is a serious blow to school management, teachers and students. It can be seen in no other light than that they are being penalised because of their super endeavour to help disadvantaged students by keeping them in second level education and helping them attain better results at both junior and leaving certificate level.

The Minister and the Department cannot stand over such extreme folly. If some of those students in urban areas drop out, the results are very serious in many cases. It is clear that under the criteria of the new scheme, DEIS, there is a bias towards major urban areas as against rural areas. It would be difficult to find an example of a similar secondary school in a rural disadvantaged area. The results of the support mechanisms in that school were obvious at both junior and leaving certificate level and in the retention rate.

The Comptroller and Auditor General in his recent report referred to the board with responsibility for supervising school attendance, the National Educational Welfare Board, and the HSE. He stated that the board had failed in dealing with the case where a child in a disadvantaged area missed more than 20 school days per year. The board has been ineffective in following through when children are absent from school for more than 20 days.

I ask the Minister of State to indicate to those schools included in the former disadvantaged status system that they too will retain their support mechanisms and resources and that the obvious imbalance between the urban and rural schemes will be eradicated. The new scheme introduced on 30 May 2006 was supposed to ensure equality within the education system but there is no equality in this new scheme. The scheme will be welcomed by certain schools because they have been included for the first time, but the 140 second level schools that have lost this designation feel aggrieved because they are being penalised for their excellence.