Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 1 March 2017
19. Deputy Thomas Byrne asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to introduce a fair appeals system for schools not admitted to the DEIS programme; the reason the entry criteria for DEIS are not based on the latest census data; and if work is actually complete on the model for achieving DEIS status. [10618/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraI wish to ask the Minister about his plans to introduce a fair appeals system for schools that have not been admitted to the DEIS process, a process that seems to be fairly arbitrary. Can he also tell me why the entry criteria for DEIS are not based on the latest census results? Could he tell me whether work on the model for achieving DEIS has been completed because it must be said that it was very vague in all the parliamentary questions to which the Minister replied? It seems that there was a rush to get this out and that it was done on a flawed basis.
A significant benefit of the new identification process for the DEIS plan for 2017 lies in its capacity as a uniform system adopting common criteria and a consistent application across all primary and post-primary schools so it is a completely independent process. The key data sources are the primary online, POD, and post-primary online, PPOD, databases and CSO data from the national census of population as represented in the Pobal HP deprivation index for small areas. This data is combined with pupil data, anonymised and aggregated to small area level to provide information on the relative level of concentrated disadvantage present in the pupil cohort of individual schools.
The CSO small area population statistics used in this process are the most up-to-date available. CSO small area data based on the 2016 national census will be available on 20 July 2017 and will facilitate an update of the identification model from that data.
A further strength of the new identification process is its capacity to be regularly updated and to be responsive to significant change in pupil demographics which might impact on the level of concentrated disadvantage present in a particular school. My Department's primary and post-primary online databases are updated annually by schools and the relevant national census data is updated at five yearly intervals. In this respect, the identification process is subject to ongoing update and this is as it should be.
If any school considers that the outcome of the identification process is inaccurate, it may make an application for a review to verify the information used to assess the level of disadvantage of its pupil cohort to my Department. Information on how this can be done is available on the DEIS section of my Department's website. Verification will include a check of the school data supplied by individual schools and a check of the application of the data to ensure that no administrative error has occurred.
The truth is that the Government did not have its act together on this project. This was rushed out and done without thought and clarity. It is not clear to schools what the criteria are. How many people must be from an area of disadvantage for the school to qualify for DEIS status? There is also a very obvious flaw in whatever the methodology is in that if there are two schools in one catchment area and one takes all the disadvantaged pupils or a large proportion of them and the other takes the other section of society, there is no provision in the criteria to allow for that, so that is an obvious flaw.
There are examples all across the country of different schemes that can look at where people live, which is what the Government purports to do, but that can also look at medical card information, social welfare information, Traveller status and other groups. One secondary school of which I am aware was granted DEIS status but all its feeder schools from the primary level were refused it. That is not logical. That is wrong and is just one of many examples around the country where there are so many anomalies, and I know the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has an interest in this. I put it to the House and the Minister that the anomalies exist because the Government rushed this out, did not wait for the up-to-date census figures and has not set out clearly exactly what the criteria are.
The criteria are published. This has been subject to very rigorous review based on best international practice. I can read out the criteria. They are age dependency within the area; demographic decline or rise; whether parents have primary, secondary or third level education; overcrowding within the families involved; occupational status; lone parent profile; and unemployment rates for males and females. It goes through best practice indicators of deprivation in an area that are available to us. They are far superior to medical card information that is not available on the same basis. We can use it on an anonymous basis so we have the pupil enrolment within the school and can trace back entirely independently without looking any individual's name or address, source the address and identify the small area. It is very rigorous and fair. Where a school has a catchment drawing some children from middle class areas and some from lower class areas, it takes that into account automatically. That is built into it. It is far superior to the sort of data suggested by the Deputy, such as medical cards which are income tested and determined for entirely purposes - in other words, for medical purposes. These are objective standards. We can update them from year to year so that we can see how a school is moving and progressing. Best international practice is being applied and it was in no way rushed. In fact, we took extra time to ensure it was fair and equitable and that people knew how it worked.
It was rushed because, as the Minister said, the Government did not wait until the up-to-date census figures were published. What will happen in July? What the Minister described to me is not the entry criteria for DEIS but the criteria for the Pobal HP deprivation index for small areas. The Minister has not set out clearly for schools how the Department extrapolates that information and applies it to the schools. It is completely disingenuous to tell me how Pobal decides with regard to its small areas. That does not necessarily relate to who is in the schools. It just relates to where these children are from. There could be two schools in a relatively wealthy area but many disadvantaged students could go to one school and many advantaged students go to the other and that is not taken into account. Medical cards are not perfect but the Department uses them for the school transport scheme. They are also used for admitting and facilitating disadvantaged students into third level education so there are lots of examples within the Department where other criteria are used. The Minister has not set out how the Pobal HP deprivation index for small areas is actually applied, how it relates to the school and what percentage of children from particular disadvantaged small areas need to be in the school for it to qualify for DEIS status.
I have indicated very clearly that only schools that meet the highest disadvantaged criteria are being admitted on this occasion. It involves 79 schools and a number of schools have been upgraded so that is less than 2% of all schools in the population. This is based on the cases that are glaring examples of a scheme that has not been open since 2009 and where the indicators of disadvantage in those communities are huge. I deliberately brought them in early so that from next September, I can start to provide support to those schools that have not had the chance to get this support since 2009. That is why I am doing it in this way. Obviously, the new census data will provide us with new information and we will review this and look at other schools that perhaps should be included in the future. We will be refining the model as we go along and will look at other factors. There have been glaring examples of schools that have been left out. We have used an objective set of criteria that is internationally respected and based on the actual pupils in the school and their backgrounds so there could be nothing more rigorous available to conduct matters independently, as we have done.
