Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 563: To ask the Minister for Education and Science the reason a school (details supplied) in County Mayo failed to qualify under the DEIS after a review took place when it is in a cluster with two other schools both of which are included; and the way in which this school differed from the other two under the qualifying criteria for the scheme. [33248/06]

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

DEIS (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools), the action plan for educational inclusion, provides for a standardised system for identifying levels of disadvantage and a new integrated School Support Programme (SSP). The School Support Programme will bring together, and build upon, a number of existing interventions in schools with a concentrated level of disadvantage.

The process of identifying primary and second-level schools for participation in the SSP 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.

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 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.

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. He was supported by a nominated staff member from the Educational Research Centre and an official from my own Department.

Primary schools seeking a review were advised that applications must relate to data on the relevant variables included in the ERC survey of May, 2005 and to the reference date of 30 September, 2004. They were also informed that consideration would be given to major changes in a school's socio-economic composition at the mid-way point between the 2005/2006 and 2009/2010 identification process i.e. in 2007/2008.

All applications for review were thoroughly examined by the Review Group. This included making contact with schools where clarification was required on any aspect of their application.

An application for review was received from the school referred to by the Deputy. In accordance with the recommendations of the Review Group, the school has not been identified for inclusion in the School Support Programme and the Principal was informed by letter on 4th August, 2006.

My Department has recently received correspondence from the school outlining changes in the socio-economic profile of the area and has been informed that the points made will be noted in the context of the mid-term review of schools which have had a major change in socio-economic composition since September 2004.