Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 542: To ask the Minister for Education and Science if different criteria are used in assessing all boys and all girls schools for qualification for DEIS; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [32091/06]

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 543: To ask the Minister for Education and Science the number of school which were originally designated as disadvantaged and which have lost that status under DEIS; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [32092/06]

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 542 and 543 together.

The process of identifying primary and second-level schools for participation in the new School Support Programme under DEIS was managed by the Educational Research Centre (ERC) on behalf of my Department 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), as: ". . . the impediments to education arising from social or economic disadvantage which prevent students from deriving appropriate benefit from education in schools". In the primary sector, the identification process was based on a survey of all primary schools in May 2005, from which a response rate of more than 97% was achieved. The analysis of the survey returns by the ERC identified the socioeconomic variables that collectively best predict achievement, and these variables were then used to identify schools for participation in the School Support Programme. The variables involved are: unemployment; local authority accommodation; lone parenthood; Travellers; large families (5 or more children); and pupils eligible for free books

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 these 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 OPS – "Overall Performance Scale" — score). This was based on each student's performance in the seven subjects in which s/he performed best; and Leaving Certificate retention rates by school. The gender composition of a school was not a factor in determining identification for SSP at either primary or second level. All schools were assessed in the same way.

As a result of the identification process, 840 schools were invited to participate in the SSP. These comprised 640 primary schools (320 urban/town schools and 320 rural schools) and 200 second-level schools. A review mechanism was put in place to address the concerns of those primary and second level schools that did not qualify for inclusion in the School Support Programme but regarded themselves as having a level of disadvantage which is of a scale sufficient to warrant their inclusion in the programme. On foot of this process a further 40 schools have been invited to take part in the Programme. Approximately 125 schools between primary and second- level, which did not qualify for inclusion in the School Support Programme, are receiving support under the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme. These schools and those benefiting from other pre-existing schemes will keep the extra resources — both financial and human — that they are getting under these initiatives for the 2006/07 school year. After that they will continue to get support in line with the level of disadvantage among their pupils.