Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

A considerable number of issues were raised. I will try to deal with them as quickly as possible.

Senators said there was confusion over how decisions on DEIS status were reached. The criteria used are based on a statistical model. It is some form of HP model. Essentially, the ingredients are population decline, dependency ratios, the educational levels of parents, which are based on two measures, lone parenthood, overcrowding of the home, social class, occupation and unemployment rates. The authorities consider the pupils enrolled in the school and the background from which they are drawn, and then they apply the measures I have listed. The system is applied uniformly to every school in the country. Therefore, there is no question of me or any individual favouring one school over another. Any school can request a review of the way a calculation was undertaken. The criteria are based entirely on using a fair model. The previous model was based on principals making returns, often, as Senator Mulherin indicated, in an arbitrary or incomplete way. What we are now doing is a first step; it is a first round. We are clearly opening the programme to other schools.

Senator Catherine Ardagh complained about an individual school in Walkinstown being left out. Dublin 12 had 15 DEIS schools. Five additional schools there have obtained DEIS status out of a national total of 79. At primary level, two of the schools are in Greenhills and one is in Moran Road and, at second level, the schools are in Greenhills and Walkinstown. That was based on a fair selection. It not prejudiced against anyone. The same rules were applied everywhere.

Resource teaching was raised. We are providing 900 additional resource teachers. We are guaranteeing that no school will lose. On top of that, we are obviously protecting the resources for children with complex needs. Resources in this regard will continue to be allocated. We are deploying the 900 additional teachers in the schools that demonstrate on an objective basis, taking into account literacy standards and such measures, that they have a higher level of learning need than other schools. Therefore, the schools with the highest level of learning need will be the ones that will gain the additional resource teachers, and all the others will keep what they have had. A school will continue to have a resource for any child with complex needs. If a school feels it does not have sufficient resources for individuals, it can apply to the NCSE, which will review the matter. A new support service is being established in the NCSE to support schools in making this a success. It is a good model and it is worth supporting.

I fully agree with several Senators who raised the well-being programme in many contexts, from obesity to mental health. The programme is crucial. I acknowledge schools cannot provide the whole response but we are investing substantially in rolling out the junior cycle well-being programme. We are providing 22 hours' support for the teacher to roll out the programme, as with all junior cycle measures. There will be an effort to develop resilience in the schools. Every school has got a seven-point plan, on which it is asked to engage to ensure this gets embedded in a high-quality system. We are backing that with the support in the psychology service. We made a commitment to put guidance counsellors back in the schools. Therefore, we are putting in resources.

Senators said we should be expanding NEPS faster. I would love to be able to do so. There was no commitment to have 65 staff in quarter 1. This is the first extension. We are recruiting ten staff and we hope to expand the service by 25%. We are taking the pressure off the service because we are no longer requiring diagnostic tests. Much NEPS time is spent on diagnostic tests on children. This involves writing up reports simply so they may be submitted to the NCSE to draw down resources. We are doing away with the need for all those reports. The diagnostic model is being left behind. We are freeing up the resources of NEPS to go into the schools and support them in a much more positive way.

I cannot accept that the plan is a rerun of last year's plan. The first plan was a three-year plan but we have specified what we are going to deliver in each quarter of 2017. We met 85% of last year's commitments, and we hope to do better than that this year. This is not a rerun and the objectives are entirely new.

I do not accept that children in disadvantaged schools are giving up on their dreams. I have been to those schools and I see some fantastic children embracing the opportunities that education offers.