OECD Review of Resourcing Schools to Address Educational Disadvantage in Ireland

Assessment and recommendations

Educational context

Ireland’s economy is resilient, but an ageing population and inaccessible housing present challenges for the education system

Ireland's economy demonstrated resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. The government's COVID-19 measures contributed to the economy weathering many challenges successfully, enabling a strong recovery boosted by exports from the multinational sector and high vaccination rates. Fiscal performance improved, moving from a deficit of ‑1.6% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2021 to a surplus of 1.6% in 2022. Moreover, Ireland's public debt fell well below the OECD average, decreasing from 65.5% in 2021 to 46.7% in 2022.

However, as in many other OECD countries, these developments are accompanied by population ageing. It is predicted that the share of people aged 65 and older will increase from 15.1% in 2022 to 21.5% in 2040 and then to 27.5% in 2061. In contrast, the share of the population in early childhood education and care (ECEC) and most of compulsory education (0‑14 year‑olds) is predicted to decrease from 19.5% in 2022 to 15.3% in 2040, increase slightly to about 15.6% in 2050 and then drop again to 14.1% by 2061. With student numbers decreasing, there may be a shift in public resources towards pension schemes and healthcare. Related to the demographics are migration trends. The number of immigrants, standing at 141.6 thousand in April 2023, has been the highest since 2007. More than half (53%) were aged between 25 and 44 years. Furthermore, 18 266 Ukrainian students had been enrolled in schools across Ireland at the end of April 2024.

Moreover, housing and homelessness pose complex challenges in Ireland. The increase in housing prices in recent years has escalated affordability concerns, exacerbated by a housing stock that has struggled to keep pace with the rising number of households, particularly for lower-income families. Lack of affordable and social housing also impacts homelessness. Homelessness figures are at record levels, with almost 10 000 adults accessing local authority funded emergency accommodation in 2023. The number of dependants (children) accessing local authority managed emergency accommodation also rose from 3 422 in 2019 to 3 962 in 2023.

Ireland demonstrates strong performance and equity internationally, but some gaps are persistent

Ireland demonstrates strong performance and equity outcomes internationally across primary and post‑primary (secondary) educational levels. Primary-level students scored among the highest-performing participating countries in mathematics, science and reading in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2019 and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2021. At the post‑primary level, students in Ireland surpassed the OECD average in mathematics, reading and science in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022. Moreover, the socio-economic gap in educational attainment, while still present, is narrower than on average across OECD countries. Overall, Ireland's educational system not only consistently outperforms many other OECD countries, but also exhibits relative socio-economic fairness, making it one of the stronger performers globally.

Well‑being outcomes were generally better in Ireland than on average across OECD countries. In 2022, 81% of 15-year-old students in Ireland reported making friends easily at school (OECD average 76%) and 71% felt they belonged at school (OECD average 75%). Meanwhile, 14% reported feeling lonely at school, and 14% like an outsider or left out of things at school (OECD average 16% and 17%). However, some 13% of 15-year-old girls and 19% of boys reported being the victim of bullying acts at least a few times a month (OECD average 20% of girls and 21% of boys).

Despite these accomplishments, Ireland faces some challenges. Important differences in student outcomes persist for students from socio‑economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and Traveller and Roma students. Gender gaps, while observed internationally, are also visible, particularly at the post‑primary level.

Beyond compulsory education, the early leaving from education and training (ELET) rate1 has evolved positively over the past decade. The ELET rate has dropped from 8.7% in 2013 to 3.7% in 2022. The Irish population had also a higher proportion of tertiary educated and a lower proportion of low‑educated people in 2022. Ireland had 54.4% of 25‑64 year‑olds tertiary educated in 2022, above the OECD average of 40.4%, and 12.4% had lower secondary education or below (19.4% on average across the OECD).

The DEIS programme aims to address concentrated educational disadvantage in schools

The Delivering Equality of Opportunity In Schools (DEIS) programme, started in 2005 by the Department of Education (DoE), represents a key policy initiative to address concentrated educational disadvantage across the primary and post-primary (secondary) levels. Recognising the profound consequences of underachievement as a result of educational disadvantage in schools, the DEIS programme seeks to provide targeted support to schools with concentrated populations of students from socio-economically disadvantaged communities.

From 2022, 966 primary and 235 post‑primary schools have been included in the DEIS programme, and 153 712 primary and 103 657 post‑primary students were in DEIS schools in 2022/23. This means that almost a third of schools (29.9% in primary and 32.3% in post‑primary) and around a quarter of students (28.0% in primary and 25.5% in post-primary) are part of the programme. DEIS primary schools are divided into DEIS Urban Band 1, DEIS Urban Band 2 and DEIS Rural. DEIS Urban Band 1 schools address relatively higher levels of disadvantage than DEIS Urban Band 2 schools. Post‑primary schools in the DEIS programme are not categorised. A range of supports are available to DEIS schools, some of which differ by the DEIS school type. These include the allocation of teachers per student to implement smaller classes (only in DEIS Urban Band 1 primary schools), the allocation of administrative and deputy principals (not in DEIS Rural primary schools), the DEIS grant allocation, access to the Home School Community Liaison (HSCL) Scheme (not in DEIS Rural), enhanced access to the School Meals Programme, access to the School Completion Programme (not in DEIS Rural), literacy and numeracy supports (not in DEIS Rural and DEIS Post-primary), action planning supports, continuous professional learning supports, priority access to National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS), and an enhanced School Books Grant Scheme for Senior Cycle students in DEIS Post-primary schools2. While seeing improvements over the last decade, gaps between schools that are part of the DEIS programme and those that are not persist.

Strengths and challenges

The DoE is committed to addressing educational disadvantage through the DEIS programme

Since the 1990s, policy to address educational disadvantage in Ireland has centred on the targeting of additional resources and supports towards schools serving disadvantaged populations. The DEIS programme was then introduced in 2005 to bring together several earlier standalone schemes which addressed specific aspects of educational disadvantage. The rationale for the DEIS approach is the existence of a “multiplier effect”, whereby students attending a school with a concentration of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have poorer academic outcomes, even taking account of individual social background.

Analysis of the DEIS programme has shown that it has helped to reduce the gap in achievement between schools serving the highest levels of educational disadvantage and those serving populations with little or no disadvantage. It has provided more equitable opportunities to children who come to education at a disadvantage.

The commitment to educational disadvantage and DEIS has continued over several decades. For example, the Programme for Government 2020 “Programme for Government - Our Shared Future” sets out the main political priorities concerning the Irish education system, including a commitment to supporting students with special educational needs and those at risk of educational disadvantage. It commits to the implementation of the revised DEIS programme.

The system recognises the importance of stakeholder engagement in education, but there is limited coordination and integration of services across departments to support students at risk of educational disadvantage

Consultation with education stakeholders is an important element of the Irish education system, as stated in the Education Act (1998). One of the central objectives of the 1998 Act is to promote and give statutory recognition to partnership as a principle which underpins the operation of the education system. To fulfil this goal, the DoE consults Education Partners regarding policy changes or issues of equity and inclusion in primary and post-primary education. The Education Partners include national bodies representing school administrators and patrons, teachers’ unions, principals, parents and students, as well as non‑governmental advocacy bodies. The DoE involves the Education Partners regularly to gain from their knowledge and they advise the Department on any proposed changes. Education Partners are also represented in the DEIS Advisory Group that meets at least once a year or more often if more pressing issues for discussion arise.

While the involvement of stakeholders is key in ensuring an effective tackling of educational disadvantage, it is not sufficient by itself. Coordination and collaboration among different departments and services is fundamental as well. In horizontal coordination, sharing or coordinating responsibilities among government departments or government and non-government actors can have positive impacts for equity and inclusion in education. The need to integrate services and coordinate between departments to reflect the multidimensional nature of disadvantage has also been recognised in Ireland and features in the design and objectives of the DEIS Plan. In this area, the DoE has both developed formal and informal engagement with various other Departments, it takes part in several governmental initiatives (such as the DEIS Advisory Group) and is involved in various intra-departmental policies such as the Roadmap for Inclusion and the Anti-Racism Plan. Moreover, education policy and the DEIS programme have also featured in the Cabinet Committee on Children and Education (and the previous Committee on Education).

Overall, while service integration is an important and recurring theme across many government strategies, evidence suggests that weak service integration continues to undermine day-to-day experiences for children and families. For instance, despite recent efforts, the OECD review team was informed that the schools (particularly principals and staff) were in many cases required to support parents with the coordination of social and health services and that there is limited coordination of these services with the education sector at the system level. In addition, according to a recent OECD report, children and young people with complex mental and physical health needs continue to face challenges to access appropriate counselling and quality support due to fragmentation in the delivery of services and lack of coordination between relevant departments and agencies.

The DoE Inspectorate assists in policy making, but the sharing of good practices on educational disadvantage could be further promoted in the education system and among schools

In Ireland, there is a long history of evaluating schools and teachers by the centralised Inspectorate, which is a division of the DoE, but acts independently. This structure can enable building synergies by closely interlinking the work of the Inspectorate with the other units of the DoE. Inspections are carried out to improve the quality of learning and teaching that children and young people experience in Irish schools, centres for education and other settings, and to support the development of the Irish education system. The Inspectorate does this by providing evaluation, analysis, support and advice in relation to education provision mainly at early years, primary and post-primary levels. Inspectors also provide advice on a range of education issues to school communities, policy makers in the Department and to the wider education system. Additionally, the Inspectorate provides valuable advice to policy makers within the DoE and the broader education system.

Moreover, the Inspectorate has the role of collecting and describing promising practices and programmes in its published reports of inspected schools, as well as more thematic reports, including on main inspection findings from DEIS schools. Research evidence shows the potential of promoting collaboration with other schools as it benefits peer learning, the sharing of resources and school improvement efforts more generally. In addition, the Inspectorate shares good practices about DEIS through numerous presentations given to Trustee bodies at the school level, Education Training Boards, DEIS seminars and working with Education Centres. The DoE and Oide (new support service for teachers and school leaders, funded by the DoE) also contribute to the sharing of good practices throughout the system: the DoE, for instance, has organised some learning days to share good practices, while Oide has been facilitating seminars and workshops to support DEIS schools to create SMART targets in DEIS action planning.

Despite some existing initiatives, there is scope for strengthening school-to-school collaborations and networking in the Irish education system. The OECD review team heard during interviews and school visits that sharing of good practices to support students at risk of educational disadvantage often takes place through informal exchanges between schools. The OECD team also gained the impression that not all schools were aware of all the guidance materials and tools for DEIS support available on various sites and links, and thus often relied on exchanging about practices with other schools.

The baseline resourcing of Irish schools is relatively stable, but voluntary contributions can present a challenge to some parents

International evidence shows that countries often exhibit a structural inequality in the baseline resourcing of schools that may partially offset targeted funding supports. Disadvantaged schools tend to operate in older buildings, lack modern equipment, and have greater difficulties in attracting and retaining well-qualified teachers and principals. Ireland does not appear to be prominently facing this issue, at least at the primary level. Research has shown similar levels of human resources between DEIS and non-DEIS schools, as well as participation in continuing professional learning. Based on the representative National Assessments of Mathematics and English Reading (NAMER) 2021 survey, some gap appears only in terms of material resources – such as access to ICT or (stocks of) information books – in favour of non-DEIS schools at primary level. Otherwise, abstracting from the DEIS support, primary schools do not seem to be systematically less well-resourced through government funding, but PISA 2022 showed that DEIS Post‑primary schools do suffer disproportionately from a lack of human resources.

Students can face certain expenses within the education system. In particular, voluntary (financial) contributions (as well as other school-related costs charged to parents) are a topic that has not been extensively researched yet and remains a subject of controversy. While limited, data show that DEIS schools tend to be far more cautious in asking parents for a school contribution. Whereas 66% of non‑DEIS urban principals replied that they asked for voluntary contributions, only 21% of DEIS Urban Band 1 and 30% of DEIS Urban Band 2 schools did so. This suggests that the DEIS support’s financial implications help schools reduce the financial pressure on parents. However, this phenomenon may reinforce socio-economic segregation among schools by attracting more students from disadvantaged backgrounds into DEIS schools. According to the Admissions Act 2018 and Circular 32/2017, voluntary contributions may only be sought from parents, where it is made clear to parents that there is no compulsion to pay and that a child’s place in the school or continued enrolment is not dependent on a willingness to make a contribution.

The use of the HP Index for the identification of needs enhances trust and support for DEIS, but its validity could be improved

The DEIS identification mechanism has undergone significant improvements in regard to the use of more overarching and objective parameters. The OECD review team was informed that there was a lot of discontent about the allocation of DEIS resources in the past. Whereas some stakeholders admitted that they were not aware of the criteria for inclusion of schools in the DEIS programme, others thought that criteria were arbitrary or a product of case-by-case bargaining. The adoption of the Pobal Haase Pratschke Index (HP Index) as a scientifically underpinned – though still imperfect – instrument was a significant step forward in identifying and prioritising the needs of schools for additional resources. The main advantages of the HP Index are that it is census-based, already used by several Irish departments and services, does not require separate data collections for its update, and it has been validated scientifically through a comparison with alternative potential indicators. Moreover, the algorithm used within DEIS focuses on social disadvantage at school level rather than individual level, which reflects the larger effect of concentration of disadvantage on student outcomes, compared to individuals’ lower socio-economic status.

However, there is room for further improvement of the algorithm. On the one hand, the content of the HP Index could be balanced further in the future, in particular in regard to the inclusion of variables relating to immigrant or ethnic minority background that are currently not accounted for in the HP Index. This exclusion is partly remedied by the separate weighting of Traveller and Roma students, recently arrived refugees and students experiencing homelessness. Yet, Ireland remains an outlier, as most European Union and OECD countries consider immigrant status as a criterion for extra support to schools. While Ireland is in the exceptional position of attracting high-qualified immigrants due to its high-tech sector, the argument does not apply to all immigrants and more fine-grained indicators may be needed. Furthermore, the rising concern about mental health issues among young people may justify a search for indicators of youth mental health as an additional input into the identification model (although such data do not seem to be currently available).

Moreover, the design of the algorithm transforming the HP Index into a classification tool is complex, with several stages of transformation, cutting-off and addition of data. While the focus on concentrations of disadvantage is beyond dispute, it remains unclear to what extent the resulting classification into four categories at primary level (DEIS Urban Band 1, DEIS Urban Band 2, DEIS Rural and non-DEIS) and two at post-primary level (DEIS and non-DEIS) is valid, what proportion of the theoretical target groups actually receives support, and to what extent the most disadvantaged students are receiving the strongest support. Thus, the internal validity of the resulting classification deserves a closer inspection. The key question is not just to what extent the inequalities in outcomes between DEIS and non-DEIS schools are decreasing across time, but more importantly, to what extent overall inequalities in outcomes between socio‑economically advantaged and disadvantaged students (irrespective of the type of schools they are attending) are diminishing.

The earmarking and conditionality of DEIS resourcing ensures an adequate multidimensional tackling of disadvantage, but thresholds in the DEIS classification mechanism result in large differences in levels of support

A strength of the DEIS programme is that the core additional resources that it grants to schools are earmarked and provided in-kind. As a result of this multi-pronged approach, there is a guarantee that schools tackle educational disadvantage using the whole range of instruments, rather than just reducing class size or engaging additional teaching staff. Moreover, schools are obliged to design their own DEIS action plans with school-specific targets, and to evaluate their own progress.

However, the use of hard thresholds and the categorisation in four categories can pose a challenge to the schools and their ability to tackle disadvantage in their student population. This concerns both schools that qualify and those that do not qualify for DEIS support. Firstly, thresholds draw a dividing line between schools that benefit from additional resources and schools that do not, with a risk of fuelling stigma among the former and/or envy among the latter, and potentially reinforce segregation among schools. Additionally, from a resourcing standpoint, not qualifying for the support can make a significant difference for schools, driving vertical and horizontal equity issues between schools. There is an on‑going debate about tapering of the DEIS support, i.e. using sliding scales of support instead of “in or out” thresholds. Schools that fall just outside the threshold for inclusion in the DEIS programme may also need additional support to foster social inclusion, despite the existence of mainstream instruments for that purpose. The estimated relatively high proportion of socio-economically disadvantaged students who do not attend DEIS schools also suggests a need for tapering of supports. On the other end of the distribution, the most disadvantaged schools flag the need for a “DEIS plus” category, stating that their needs are overwhelming, and the current level of support appears to be insufficient. Principals report severe cases of intergenerational poverty, family breakups, trauma linked to state care placement, homelessness, mental health issues, violence, (parental) substance abuse and bullying, all symptoms of pockets of extreme marginalisation that may need further recognition and support.

DEIS schools can benefit from additional teaching and leadership resources, but the high level of student needs often places a strain on DEIS schools’ capacity in several priority areas

Teachers in many DEIS schools are faced with challenges in meeting the diverse needs of students with high levels of educational disadvantage. While the overall benefits of class size reductions are contested, there is evidence suggesting that disadvantaged students, particularly at lower levels of education, benefit the most from smaller classes. In Ireland, the most disadvantaged primary schools in urban areas (DEIS Urban Band 1 schools) benefit from reduced class sizes. While DEIS primary schools (DEIS Urban Band 2 and DEIS Rural) and DEIS Post-primary schools do not benefit from class size reductions, NAMER 2021 and PISA 2022 data suggest that class sizes in DEIS Urban Band 2 primary schools were lower than in non-DEIS schools (for second class students) and disadvantaged post-primary schools in Ireland tend to have slightly lower student-teacher ratios.

Principals in Ireland are generally confident in their teachers’ ability to meet students’ needs. However, 19.9% of 15-year-olds attended a school whose principal reported in PISA 2022 that teachers – to some extent – could not meet their students’ needs (compared to 27.8% “to some extent” or “a lot” across the OECD). While teachers are not expected to address all of their students’ needs or to address them on their own, and are supported by a range of professionals, particularly in DEIS schools (e.g. career guidance counsellors, special education teachers, special needs assistants, HSCL Coordinators, SCP staff and Student Support Teams at the post-primary level), high levels of students’ needs are placing a strain on the entire support system. This issue appears to particularly affect DEIS schools. The OECD review team formed the impression that at least some of the capacity challenges experienced by DEIS schools relate to a rise in the level and complexity of students’ needs, as well as the support schools are expected to provide. Often, schools are seen as a hub for different actors to interact and to provide children with wraparound support services in a safe environment, or at least to direct them to appropriate sources of external support. While many actors have embraced this vision of schools in the spirit of a holistic approach to learning, it appears that schools – particularly those with the highest levels of disadvantage – cannot rise to this challenge alone and without sufficient capacity around them. Stakeholders pointed to the lack of therapeutic support and other staff trained to work directly with students and parents on trauma and other severe issues as impeding children’s education (including psychologists, speech and language therapists, counsellors, occupational therapists etc.).

The professional learning offer is responsive to the local needs of teachers and of DEIS schools, but staff shortages remain a challenge for both DEIS and non-DEIS schools

High-quality initial teacher education (ITE) programmes aim to equip teachers with both the knowledge and skills they need to make appropriate professional judgements and deliver effective instruction. Although ITE programmes mark the beginning and not the end of teachers’ professional learning journey, they can lay a strong foundation on which teachers can continue building throughout their careers. At the same time, teachers are faced with evolving responsibilities and an increasing expectation to act as leaders, e.g. by assuming responsibilities beyond the classroom, including for school improvement or the professional learning of their peers. Teachers are also increasingly expected to take a holistic approach to students’ education that considers both their learning and well-being. The perceived rise in expectations has been a reported source of stress among teachers, which underlines the importance of a well-designed ITE system. Ireland’s DoE has undertaken clear efforts to ensure that ITE programmes reflect these developments and continue preparing teachers to meet evolving expectations and to address diverse students’ needs. While teachers interviewed during the OECD review visit emphasised the limitations of ITE and underlined the steep learning curves they experienced during their first years in service, the OECD team formed the impression that teachers – on the whole – felt their ITE programmes provided them with a strong position to start their careers.

While teacher training has been successful in preparing teachers for their careers, Ireland has been grappling with a significant teacher shortage over the past few years. Principals in PISA 2022 reported that instruction for about a third of students was hindered to some extent by inadequate or poorly qualified teaching staff, which risks compounding the capacity issues caused by teacher shortages. Teacher shortages in Ireland particularly affect students in disadvantaged schools and areas. The shortage of teaching staff remained significantly more pronounced in disadvantaged schools, a difference that was among the largest observed in OECD countries. This is consistent with reports heard by the OECD review team that DEIS schools faced particular challenges attracting and retaining staff and sometimes failed to fill positions by the beginning of the school year in part for being perceived as difficult teaching environments. Staff shortages within Ireland’s schools are compounded by those of relevant external support services (e.g. NEPS and Tusla staff) on which schools rely to support their most disadvantaged students in particular.

ITE provides teachers with relevant preparation to support disadvantaged students, but there are still factors that limit teachers’ engagement in continuous professional learning

As with other countries, Ireland is placing an increasing emphasis on inclusive education and the provision of differentiated support to meet the needs of a diverse student population, including in ITE. Indeed, Ireland’s updated ITE standards refer to inclusive education as one of the seven core elements of ITE programmes. To deliver successful ITE programmes, it is also important to provide teachers with opportunities to practise their knowledge and skills in a classroom setting. To this end, the Teaching Council considers school placements as “the fulcrum of teacher education” and requires the school-based element of ITE programmes to include at least 200 hours of direct teaching experience in a variety of school contexts. However, strengthening teachers’ capacity for high-quality instruction requires a strong emphasis on continuing professional learning from the time they enter the classroom to the end of their careers. In Ireland, teachers’ individual professional learning largely depends on a high level of intrinsic motivation and their schools’ capacity to support this practice. This lack of general requirements for primary and post‑primary teachers to participate in continuing professional learning stands out in international comparison. Moreover, there are barriers that may deter Irish teachers from engaging in voluntary continuing professional learning. For instance, during the OECD review visit, multiple schools reported having difficulties organising substitutes to allow teachers to engage in continuing professional learning during the school year.

Ireland is also among a minority of OECD countries that do not engage in the systematic regular appraisal of teachers or principals. According to OECD data, in 2015, at the primary level, 28 of 35 OECD countries had a legislative framework for teacher appraisal at the primary and secondary level and Ireland was one of only four among them that did not require regular appraisals. This lack of appraisals risks limiting a system’s ability to evaluate teachers’ abilities, guide their professional progress and may undermine teachers’ long-term motivation. Furthermore, the OECD review team formed the impression that not all schools are systematically engaging in collaborative learning, particularly in the form of regular classroom-observations and feedback (either by principals or by peers). From PISA data, it also appears as though teachers in Ireland’s most disadvantaged schools are the least likely to receive feedback on their practice from their school leadership and there is also evidence of significant inequities across schools.

Capacity building is further promoted through the Inspectorate’s approach to the DEIS action planning and with the support of communities of practice

Schools in the DEIS programme are subject to the Inspectorate’s full range of inspection models, ranging from incidental, unannounced one-day inspections to more intensive whole-school evaluations and “follow‑through inspections” focused on the implementation of recommendations made in previous inspection reports. In addition, inspections of DEIS schools place a strong emphasis on the schools’ action planning process, which guides the schools’ improvement and capacity building. The external evaluation of DEIS schools focuses on how schools devise, implement and monitor their DEIS action plan and its impact on teaching practices, students’ learning experiences and outcomes with respect to ten DEIS themes. The action planning process can enhance schools’ capacity both indirectly – by strengthening the school management’s approach to collaborative improvement planning – and directly – by providing schools with evaluative feedback on their use of continuing professional learning. While there appears to remain scope for improvement in the effective use of continuing professional learning in DEIS schools, particularly at the post-primary level, the inspection reports underlined that investments in continuing professional learning clearly paid off and complimented the high teaching quality in primary schools with a strong professional learning culture. In addition to the Inspectorate’s approach to the DEIS action planning process to promote capacity building, communities of practice can provide teachers with a safe environment to expose themselves to new practices, to challenge their tacit assumptions, and to engage in active discussions with their peers on what works and why. Ireland recognises the potential of informal learning and teachers are increasingly complementing their traditional training with an active engagement in communities of practice. Oide has reported that they are actively promoting the formation of communities of practice and are building them into their professional learning frameworks. Moreover, the DoE, in collaboration with the Inspectorate and the Education Centres, has established communities of practice for DEIS principals.

The diversity of school staff remains limited and key groups are underrepresented

The diversity of school staff and student-teacher congruence with respect to key demographic characteristics (e.g. belonging to the same ethnic or socio-economic group) can help improve the well‑being and education outcomes of minority and disadvantaged students. The diversity of the teaching workforce has been a policy focus in Ireland for over a decade, particularly since national datasets have brought to light the relatively homogenous socio-demographic profile of applicants and entrants into ITE programmes. Over the past decades, data have suggested that students from non-Irish backgrounds and those who attended DEIS schools were under-represented among entrants into primary and post-primary ITE programmes. Ireland developed strategies and plans over time to improve the diversity of its school staff, not only in terms of socio-economic status but also ethnic background and disabilities. Nevertheless, teachers in Ireland still do not reflect the diversity of their students. This likely has a variety of causes, including the low number of diverse teachers entering ITE and those completing the programmes. The conditions for entering the teaching profession, such as the Irish language requirement in primary education, may add barriers that risk putting off candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds. Higher attrition rates among diverse in-service teachers can be another factor reducing the representativeness of teaching staff. International evidence, primarily from the United States, for example, shows that teachers from minority backgrounds (and novice teachers) are disproportionately employed in disadvantaged, more challenging school settings, which can lead to higher attrition rates.

The supports provided by DEIS are highly regarded and sought after by schools, but non-DEIS schools often have to rely on teacher or parent volunteers to ensure the provision of certain services

The supports that the DEIS programme provides to schools are quite comprehensive and aim at ensuring schools have a range of means to support their students’ learning, along with their well-being. These supports are highly regarded and sought after, not only by teachers and principals, but also by families. In particular, the HSCL Scheme and the School Completion Programme are widely appreciated within the Irish education system. However, non-DEIS schools sometimes struggle to match the offer of DEIS in terms of other supports and activities, such as the provision of extra-curricular activities and breakfast clubs. They may not have sufficient funding to provide these activities, in particular when they have limited opportunities to raise funds through their communities. The OECD review team heard about some schools heavily relying on fundraising and philanthropy from the more advantaged families in their schools, and on parents and teachers – the latter at times being expected to - volunteering their time to run these activities. The time that teachers dedicate to such activities is not remunerated but added on top of their formal working hours. Some principals flagged concerns for the additional strain that this poses on teachers and highlighted the risk of them incurring in burnouts or fatigue, due to the increasing workload.

Moreover, schools – both non-DEIS and DEIS – sometimes rely on contributions from families to fund their activities. Reliance on voluntary contributions has been highlighted as a challenge for both schools and the families they serve. In particular, voluntary contributions are an additional expense for families that already face important costs through their children’s education, such as for textbooks for Senior Cycle students, uniforms, and other fees such as Transition Year (TY) fees – which complement grants (such as the TY grant) from the DoE. A funding challenge also exists in regard to the hiring of specialised staff. While the flexibility of the DEIS Grant allows schools to respond to very specific needs in its context, this practice has some limitations. For instance, the investment that some schools make towards the hiring of psychologists, therapists or other staff takes away from investments in other potential areas of need for the school.

The system's DEIS supports take a holistic approach that centre on student well-being, but there are unmet needs for assessment and therapy services

The DoE’s approach to supporting well-being and mental health is set out in the Wellbeing Policy and Framework for Practice (2019-2025), which proposes a preventative, multi-component, whole-school approach to supporting well-being that includes both universal and targeted actions. In line with this general approach, DEIS offers students support that is holistic in nature, and as such focuses not only on students’ academic outcomes but also on their physical and psychological well-being. An example is the School Meals Programme, which fosters student well-being from several viewpoints and is well complemented by several initiatives that support students’ psychological and socio-emotional development.

While the system proposes a holistic model to respond to children's needs and foster their well-being, long waiting times for accessing health and therapy services negatively impact on the ability of the education system to reach its holistic aim. This has a particularly negative impact for those students whose needs intersect educational disadvantage and special educational needs. Various schools reported having to support families to access health and therapy services. The National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS) of the DoE provides educational psychological support to primary, post-primary and special schools. It supports schools with casework service, while also providing a support and development service to build capacity in schools. The OECD review team was informed by schools that the allocation of time from the NEPS psychologist is insufficient to fully provide for a comprehensive educational psychological service.

Moreover, there are challenges for both the healthcare and the education system in recruiting qualified psychologists and other therapy professionals as the country faces a shortage of personnel in this area. Cross-departmental workforce planning, underpinned by cross-departmental policy, is required to meet the need for services in this area.

Some schools – DEIS and non-DEIS – have initiatives in place to engage parents and the wider community, but not all schools have the resources and capacity to do so

Research has shown that the involvement of parents, guardians and communities in the learning of their children plays a pivotal role in students’ educational achievement and broader well-being. Engaging local communities, parents or guardians, and families is therefore important for schools who seek to create inclusive and equitable school environments. In Ireland, there is a recognition on the importance of family and community engagement with schools. Moreover, DEIS schools have school planning requirements to promote partnership with parents. Indeed, data from PISA 2018 found that students in DEIS schools had a significantly higher mean score on the index of school policies for parental involvement.

Despite some notable initiatives, such as the Partnership Schools Ireland, there are still challenges for schools to engage parents and families successfully in both DEIS and non-DEIS schools. The OECD review team gained the impression that various schools struggled with engaging all parents, and in particular parents of the most disadvantaged students. The OECD review team was informed that one reason that limits non-DEIS schools’ ability to engage parents and communities more systematically is their lack of access to the HSCL Scheme. The OECD review team heard that several schools struggled to find the time and resources to engage more extensively at-risk families. Moreover, schools reported having limitations linked to their material resources when planning their family and community engagement strategies related, for instance, to school spaces. Principals and teachers mentioned the lack of a separate room where they could meet privately with parents, or in which they could organise some activities or workshops.

Evidence is central to the Irish education system, from DEIS literacy and numeracy strategies to the development, piloting and evaluation of local initiatives for specific needs

The Irish education system incorporates evidence systematically. This concerns the implementation of DEIS and its literacy and numeracy programmes components, but also the DoE practice of developing pilots to test responses to local needs and challenges. DEIS is the first programme of its kind to provide literacy and numeracy programmes (i.e. Reading Recovery; First Steps; Maths Recovery; and Ready, Set, Go Maths) to involved students, and data collected suggest that the uptake of literacy and numeracy programmes has been universal and successful among DEIS schools. Evidence suggests that these programmes have helped in particular the lowest performing students, both in the short- and long-term. Yet, research indicates that the evidence on the Reading Recovery programme is not as robust, not specific enough to the Irish context and would benefit from further assessment.

On top of the evaluations of the literacy and numeracy programmes, the Irish education system has a long‑standing practice of developing pilots and projects to respond to local needs. These pilots allow the DoE to address local needs and verify the effectiveness of different interventions, evaluating the potential for mainstreaming certain programmes and initiatives. These pilot projects span over different areas, and often aim at supporting disadvantage throughout the education system. This includes, for instance, the City Connects pilot project and the Multi-disciplinary Team project in the Dublin area. Other initiatives and pilot programmes concern specific student groups, such as the Supporting Traveller and Roma pilot project, which targets attendance, participation and retention, and school completion in specific Traveller and Roma communities. Along with the work in the North East Inner City project, an additional example of an initiative to respond to local needs, is the Limerick Regeneration Framework Implementation Plan, which was developed as the Irish government recognised the need to address the root causes and symptoms of social and economic exclusion in Limerick's regeneration areas. This project has a core education component and has been showing positive results along the years, including notable decrease in early school leaving and an enhancement in retention rates up to the Junior Cycle examinations and Leaving Certificate.

Some support measures can limit the future opportunities of students

Some of the support measures that are meant to assist diverse students with their specific learning needs may hinder their future educational and professional opportunities. This pertains, for instance, to the exemption from Irish language classes for students meeting the relevant criteria, and the possibility of adopting reduced school days (RSD) – the latter in particular for Traveller and Roma students. The main limitation linked to the exemption from the study of the Irish language relates to the access to certain paths in higher education and some professions. For example, certain third-level courses and occupations (e.g. primary education teachers) require students to have (a minimum grade) in Irish, which may be challenging to acquire, if exempted at school.

In regard to RSD, this is a support measure meant only to be put in place in exceptional circumstances and that requires schools to notify Tusla Educational Support Service (TESS) when assigned to a student. Its aim is to help students in particular circumstances, e.g. return after a period of absence, or due to a medical or mental health-related condition. TESS, on receipt of the notification from schools, supports both the parent and the school on how to use the RSD and to ensure that a plan is in place to cease the RSD over a defined period of time, no longer than six weeks. However, some Traveller and Roma groups are concerned that families are not well informed on this practice and not sufficiently aware of their rights. Moreover, some stakeholders – who engage with the DoE on these issues - worry about the inappropriate application of reduced school days, indicating they are being used outside of their original purpose, mainly as a behavioural management tool, thus inappropriately excluding students from part of the learning process. The DoE has particularly recognised the need to support Traveller families in this area, and collaborated with Traveller organisations to disseminate info to parents and families, including through the development of a video for parents of Traveller children to inform them of their rights in respect to RSDs.

While Ireland has a strong expertise in monitoring and evaluation in regard to DEIS, the use of granular and combined administrative data is limited, and evaluations lack control groups and causal implications

The DoE is committed to monitoring and evaluation, highlighted by collaboration and close integration with the Educational Research Centre. Furthermore, the DoE's commitment to innovative educational initiatives is evidenced by a range of pilot programmes. Indeed, monitoring and evaluation permeate the system with various institutions and organisations outside the public sector commissioning research. However, while wealth of information is available to the DoE to shape the system’s strong expertise in monitoring and evaluation, certain gaps persist. The DoE has not yet fully reaped the potential of the data estimating socio‑economic background at the student level. Even though non-administrative data sources have been used extensively to partially fill this gap, without access to population-wide student‑level data on socio‑economic background, research is often hindered by small sample sizes and non-response rates. The OECD review team learned there are capacity, technical and legislative barriers to sharing, using and disaggregating administrative data. For instance, one challenge is the lack of standardised data formats and interoperability standards across different institutions. Data security and privacy concerns further complicate the sharing process, as institutions must navigate complex legal and ethical frameworks to ensure compliance.

The DEIS programme has been subject to several major reviews and evaluations, using a wide range of quantitative and qualitative sources. These, broadly speaking, show that gaps between DEIS and non‑DEIS schools are, in many instances, closing. However, these evaluations suffer from the absence of a control group and causal implications. The use of a control group, however, may have ethical implications. Furthermore, estimating the causal impacts of the DEIS programme is inherently challenging due to the presence of numerous pre-existing educational initiatives. Moreover, DEIS is not the only initiative implemented in the education system, and it might be challenging to disentangle the effect of DEIS (or a specific DEIS support) from other policies, strategies and supports (within or outside of DEIS). Other challenges relate to the potential indirect effects of the DEIS programme due to staff (and students) moving between DEIS and non‑DEIS schools with varying levels of expertise, continuing professional learning and experience. Difficulties in establishing causal effects impede the accurate measurement of the DEIS programme’s impact on student outcomes. Without causal estimates, policy makers face challenges in determining whether observed changes in student achievement can be attributed to the DEIS programme or other factors and, as such, determining the value for money for the public investment.

The system emphasises the role of self-evaluation for school improvement in which the Inspectorate plays a vital role, but there is little capacity for data-informed improvement planning in DEIS schools

School self-evaluation (SSE) is a crucial aspect of educational practice among OECD countries, reflecting a commitment to continuous improvement. Since its formal integration into the Irish school system in 2012, the SSE process has become a cornerstone in enhancing the quality of education for students. SSE is viewed as a necessary and inherently positive process in the DEIS programme. Indeed, integral to the DEIS action planning process is the involvement of students, parents, local communities and agencies operating at the local level. One of those agencies is the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate’s evaluation process involves a comprehensive examination of DEIS schools, encompassing leadership, teaching quality and overall school improvement. It has developed a dedicated model, the Evaluation of Action Planning for Improvement in DEIS Schools, focusing on the effectiveness of school-based action planning processes in DEIS Urban Band 1 primary and DEIS Post‑primary schools. The Inspectorate also provides insights into various aspects, including school life, leadership of DEIS action planning, and the quality of teaching, learning and professional development.

However, while DEIS schools are expected to gather evidence and analyse data as part of the self‑evaluation that underpins the DEIS action planning process, some post-primary schools’ capacity to collect, interpret and use data to develop evidence-informed improvement strategies remains limited. Several developments have taken place in this area, e.g. Oide offers school leadership teams a programme on data and research-informed school planning, and the Inspectorate offers advisory visits to support the robust use of school-level data. Nevertheless, the OECD review team formed the impression that most principals had not yet received sufficient training or guidance and were not aware or availing themselves of the support on offer. A frequently reported barrier to the digital transformation of schools is the lack of technical support. The need to build digital capacity extends beyond the classroom and teachers’ use of digital education technologies. To this end, to ensure the effective use of data for school improvement, capacity building will need to extend to the school leadership and beyond.

Recommendations

Strengthen the coordination and integration of services across departments to better support students at risk of educational disadvantage

Effective coordination across government departments, agencies, service providers, and the community and voluntary sector is crucial, given that children and young people have specific needs spanning all policy and service areas. In the area of educational disadvantage, it is especially important to promote coordination and collaboration across the whole of government. A whole-of-government approach aims to improve the horizontal and vertical coordination of government activity to improve policy coherence and the use of resources. In Ireland, the government engages in some coordination and collaboration to meet the needs of students and communities at risk of educational disadvantage, including through the DEIS Advisory Group and the new Child Poverty and Well-being Programme Office. However, it would be important to further strengthen coordination across departments and units so that policy for education in early years education aligns with that for primary and post-primary and in turn aligns with policy for higher and further education. While there are several promising developments in this area, there is still limited integration of services at the national and local levels. It is also crucial to strengthen the integration of services across departments so that students at risk of educational disadvantage are supported in their learning, social and emotional needs. This requires the DoE and its related agencies to work closely with other relevant departments and service providers and establish cross-sectoral co-operation in regard to health and welfare issues in education.

Promote further the sharing of good practices in the education system and across schools in the area of educational disadvantage

In Ireland, there are many good practices in its education system and within schools on how to support students at risk of educational disadvantage. At the national level, for instance, the DoE organises shared learning days. In addition, DEIS communities of practice in education centres take place. The OECD review team heard that many practices are also shared on the initiative of principals and teachers. The Inspectorate collaborates with other DoE support services to share evidence-based practices with teachers and schools. This takes place, for example, through the Inspectorate’s publications on DEIS, a newsletter for schools on school self-evaluation which has featured DEIS practices, and advisory visits. However, Ireland could further promote available tools and share good practices in the system and among schools on supporting students at risk of educational disadvantage, in both DEIS and non-DEIS schools. There are several resources in reports, websites, presentations and webinars that contain tools and good practices, and schools might not always be aware and know where to search for these. More specifically, establishing an online repository of good practices in the education system might be useful where schools and other stakeholders can search for relevant practice examples in the area of educational disadvantage. Users could search among different themes and categories.

Further strengthen access to free education

Ireland has adhered to several international conventions and joint commitments that aim to guarantee the right to free education, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Pillar of Social Rights and the EU Child Guarantee agenda. The Irish law also prohibits requests for voluntary contributions, or any kind of other contribution, when parents apply for enrolment or re-enrolment in a school. The (universal) school capitation grant for operating costs of primary and post-primary schools have also been recently increased. However, under a regime of free school choice, a sound balance between universal and targeted pillars in education resourcing is essential to prevent social segregation among schools. The DoE is seeking to create guidelines which will require all schools to develop a Charter in consultation with parents and students, aiming to enhance school‑community engagement by encouraging community input on various matters, including on voluntary contributions. Nevertheless, a further strengthening of the access to free education might be necessary. This could be achieved by a review – by level of education – of categories of costs that should not be charged to parents in accordance with international conventions. It might also be important to monitor the actual school-related expenses by parents through surveys and, if needed, adjusting the capitation grant. Finally, the OECD review team recommends advising schools on how to minimise charges and how to manage voluntary contributions correctly; and, if needed, sanction unlawful pressure exercised by schools.

Continue refining and validating the indicator(s) of social disadvantage underpinning the targeting of DEIS resources

The analysis of the HP Index revealed both strengths and shortcomings of this indicator. Strengths include the multidimensionality and relatively cheap derivation of the Index, its privacy proofness and the absence of administrative burden on schools, as well as its use in several policy areas. However, the HP Index remains purely socio-economic and captures only indirectly and partly the disadvantages linked to psychological and socio-emotional well‑being, and cultural barriers and immigrant background. Yet, there is evidence in the international literature about the obstacles linked to mental health issues and students with an immigrant background. Thus, the target effectiveness and efficiency of the DEIS programme could be improved by the inclusion of additional dimensions of social disadvantage. Further research would also be helpful to assess (and possibly improve) the scientific validity of the HP Index as a key indicator. Such validation studies should be repeated at primary as well as post-primary levels, with a range of relevant dependent variables (e.g. cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes, early leaving from education and training, transition to tertiary education) to sketch a comprehensive picture of the predictive power of the (present or amended) HP Index and alternative indicators.

Examine scenarios to attenuate the adverse effects of key thresholds in the DEIS classification algorithm

The present algorithm that results in the classification of schools to be part of the DEIS programme uses mainly two key characteristics of the student body at school level, derived from the HP Index: a weighted severity of disadvantage and its extent (the proportion of students considered as disadvantaged). Cut‑off thresholds are used at the individual level to measure degrees of disadvantage, and subsequently at school level and area-level to classify schools. The combination of thresholds at individual, school and area level makes the algorithm complex and less predictable, which results in frustration among some schools that are not part of the programme. Above all, the “all-or-nothing” threshold makes it more difficult to alter the level of support to meet the current need when the levels of disadvantage have changed. It is, therefore, worth examining if smoother algorithms could be designed. At the individual level, a continuous value of the degree of disadvantage or an interval variable using more than four values (0, 0.5, 1 and 2) measuring the severity of disadvantage could be used. At the school level, a continuous value (ranging from zero to one, for example) reflecting the degree of concentration of disadvantage, based on the proportion of students exceeding a given threshold of disadvantage in the school (or an interval variable using more than three thresholds at smaller intervals), could be explored. The resulting algorithm would be smoother and more logical, and it would avoid the stacking of cut-off lines in successive steps at individual and school levels.

Extend partial additional support to all students defined as disadvantaged

Like in other OECD countries, all Irish schools have access to a limited array of specific resources and instruments to cater for socially disadvantaged students. Priority resourcing of schools in the DEIS programme dealing with a concentration of disadvantage is justified, as concentration per se has a negative effect on students’ learning opportunities. Nevertheless, there are several arguments to invest more in all disadvantaged students, irrespective of their school’s degree of concentration. Individual socio-economic and cultural minority background also affects the opportunities of students, irrespective of concentration effects. From an ethical point of view, all disadvantaged students have a right to additional supports if the policy objective is to achieve equal opportunities. The most recent published data from 2021 indicated that the focus on concentration schools (i.e. the DEIS programme) appeared to cover less than half of the disadvantaged student population, although this has likely now increased following the extension of DEIS in 2022. Thus, covering all disadvantaged students reduces the harmful effects of potential misclassification of schools. Moreover, the current range of measures and resources besides DEIS could be integrated into a more coherent overall framework to address social disadvantage. Indeed, a full coverage of the target group(s), irrespective of their geographical environment, also means that all schools would be accountable for the achievement of equal opportunities.

Prepare the periodic updating of the indicators of social disadvantage to develop a more dynamic resource allocation model

During the review process, the OECD learned that while the DEIS programme has been extended to additional schools, there are schools that had been included in the DEIS programme earlier whose disadvantage levels are no longer at the same level, and yet have continued receiving full support. A phased plan to revise the resource allocation spread over several years would be recommended to allow schools to adjust their internal resource allocation. A phased change in resources should not be seen as a penalty on good performance because the assignment of a DEIS status and the allocation of resources occur exclusively on the basis of exogenous measures of need. Nor should phasing out for some schools result in layoffs if services are gradually reallocated to other schools. This, however, would not be feasible in advance of the development of a smoother algorithm, advocated in the previous recommendation. Combined with transition periods spread over several years, this could make the reallocation of resources more acceptable and prepare the ground for future adjustments.

Address staff shortages through targeted efforts to attract and retain diverse professionals for a career in schools

Ireland is facing a significant shortage of teachers and other key staff, which is compromising schools’ capacity to provide all learners with the support they need. In fact, teacher shortages have intensified over recent years and reached one of the highest levels across OECD countries in 2022. PISA data suggest that these shortages are particularly pronounced in disadvantaged schools. Alleviating staff shortages is a complex challenge and any successful attempt to address it will need to be based on a thorough analysis of its underlying causes. Ireland will, therefore, need to further strengthen its efforts to monitor the supply and demand of teachers and the factors that drive them. To guide central efforts to address teacher shortages in the short-, medium- and long-term, and to identify their potential disproportionate effect on disadvantaged students, the monitoring of teacher supply and demand must be strengthened. Furthermore, to ensure that the teaching profession reflects the diversity of Ireland’s students, efforts to alleviate staff shortages should pay particular attention to attracting and retaining candidates from underrepresented groups. The DoE should, for instance, consider measures to improve retention, particularly among diverse teachers and those teaching in difficult environments. While research into the retention of diverse teachers remains limited, mentoring programmes designed specifically to meet the needs of teachers from ethnic minority backgrounds have shown some promise in improving their retention. Finally, greater flexibility in the recruitment of non-teaching staff could ease shortages among key support roles. For example, the DoE and Tusla could consider diversifying their approach to staffing HSCL Coordinator roles and widen the criteria for these positions (e.g. considering experienced youth workers and other professionals who work to support families), rather than relying fully on teacher-led provision. A more diverse approach to recruitment should also be considered for guidance counsellors.

Embed teachers’ continuing professional learning within a professional improvement cycle and remove barriers to participation

The learning needs of disadvantaged students and how teachers in DEIS schools are expected to address them have evolved significantly, given the increasing diversity of learners, a greater emphasis on inclusion and the emergence of new, effective teaching practices. Teachers in DEIS schools can avail themselves of a range of professional learning opportunities that are specifically aimed at addressing the needs of students at risk of educational disadvantage. To harness the full potential and maximise the impact of these opportunities, continuing professional learning in Ireland must be more firmly embedded in teachers’ professional improvement cycle. Introducing a system of formative appraisal could make an important contribution to capacity building in schools, to improve learner outcomes and the motivation among school staff. To further promote teachers’ engagement in continuing professional learning activities and to recognise those that already do, Ireland should raise expectations for teachers’ engagement in continuing professional learning. For instance, making professional development an explicit element of teachers’ appraisal process and linking their regular evaluation to individual and school-wide professional learning plans could help to foster a school culture of continuing professional learning. Furthermore, raising expectations for teachers’ engagement in continuing professional learning should go hand in hand with efforts to address existing barriers that limit their participation. This involves creating supportive structures – including effective approaches to substitution – that allow teachers to participate in continuing professional learning without compromising their classroom responsibilities.

Focus capacity-building efforts on priority areas both in and around DEIS schools

Meeting the rising and more complex needs of students and living up to a holistic vision of teaching and learning will require a continued emphasis on capacity building, particularly those serving the most disadvantaged students. Yet, there are limits to schools’ capacity and responsibility for providing support to students and parents in an environment that is characterised by significant capacity shortages across a range of social services. Therefore, a strategic student-centred approach to capacity building should be based on a reflection on the types of student support schools are best placed to provide themselves and for which students should be referred to other providers. Improved inter-agency collaboration and communication is also needed to systematically keep track of students’ needs and the support they receive across a range of providers to identify additional needs and intervene as or before they arise. Given the limited resources, Ireland should seek to target its capacity building efforts to support teachers and principals in areas of greatest needs. Data generated through school inspections can provide an invaluable source of information in this process and Oide should build on the close relationship with the Inspectorate. Some of the schools serving students with the highest levels of need may also need further support to strengthen their administrative capacity. Furthermore, school leadership teams might benefit from additional peer‑support and a more systematic exchange with other schools. Providing such opportunities to in‑service principals could contribute to their continuing professional improvement, encourage them to update their skills and take on new challenges. Collectively, these efforts could strengthen the capacity of DEIS schools while ensuring that the needs of students at greatest risk of educational disadvantage are met regardless of the school they attend.

Strengthen equity in the provision of additional resources across schools

Ensuring that access to additional resources (e.g. breakfast clubs, sports activities, and music clubs, etc.) is equitable across different schools in Ireland is key to strengthening learning opportunities for all students. This may entail ensuring that highly disadvantaged students can have the same access to resources, regardless of their enrolment in DEIS or non-DEIS schools. To address this challenge, the DoE should consider how the differences in funding across DEIS and non-DEIS schools may impact the provision of these resources and consider options to tackle this gap. Such a process would require a comprehensive review of the costs associated with breakfast clubs, sports activities, and music clubs in schools that are able to offer them, to have an estimate of the expenses that institutions face to provide such services. This review should also encompass an examination of the financial burdens faced by families, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, in accessing these resources when offered by schools. To address the costs associated with the provision of the additional resources that they deem relevant, policy makers should explore the feasibility of integrating these expenses into the capitation grant for non-DEIS schools. By incorporating these costs into the capitation grant framework, the DoE could reduce financial barriers for schools and families, enriching opportunities for all students. In particular, these efforts would counterbalance the possible gap in support and resources for disadvantaged students across DEIS and non-DEIS schools. Alternatively, the DoE could consider incorporating funds to cover these resources in the context of a potential reform of the DEIS bands. In such case, resources to cover for these additional supports could be allocated to a selected number of bands based on an assessment of different schools’ needs.

Strengthen the coordination of educational services with the health and therapeutic service provision to increase support for schools and families in meeting students’ needs

The institutional supports for students with suspected special educational needs or more generally with mental health needs are under pressure in Ireland, facing challenges from both the side of the DoE and the Department of Health. Better planning is needed so that there are adequate numbers of personnel available to provide support within both sectors. Resources appear to lack coordination in how they deliver support to the students that need it. It would be important, for all of the relevant government Departments of Health, Education and Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to collectively deliver on a joint policy, such as is the “Young Ireland 2023-2028” policy framework. Aligning adequate supports and resources for children with additional need, while simultaneously working to improve the system of support, so that barriers to access are removed, is fundamental. This is particularly important for students from families with a disadvantaged background, as their families may not be able to afford private assessment or therapeutic supports. This would also support schools, which at times need to invest a significant amount of time to help families navigate the assessment/therapeutic support system, for instance by helping them fill out forms and applications.

Ireland should strengthen the coordination and integration of services across departments to better support students at risk of educational disadvantage, ensuring that the services of the DoE and Department of Health are aligned, coordinated and complement each other. This would require stronger co‑operation between departments, and is not solely dependent on the DoE initiative.

Review additional costs of education to families to improve the accessibility of provisions

While education in Ireland is formally universally free, families can face significant costs as their children progress through education. Voluntary contributions, fees to access Transition Year, examination fees (although temporarily suspended), book costs for Senior Cycle, are all expenses that families may be facing to ensure their children stay in education. Official data on the overall amounts that families spend on these are not available at the national level. It would be important to obtain such information to understand the impact of this phenomenon on schools and potentially also families. In regard to voluntary contributions, the DoE should also account for the role that these contributions play in the funding of schools. It would be key to analyse data on how the contributions are used, what range of expenses they cover, and if they are necessary for the schools to provide what the DoE would consider the necessary standard of education provision. With respect to Transition Year fees, the DoE is currently conducting a review of access to and provision of Transition Year. Depending on the results of this analysis, the DoE should examine how to support disadvantaged students that may want to enrol in TY. These supports could be both financial and non-financial, as well as provided at the level of the individual student or school. Lastly, the DoE should re-evaluate examination fees. While these fees have not been requested in the past two years and there is an income-based exemption in place for children from lower-income families which do not need to pay, the DoE should take stock of the initiative. It should evaluate whether this policy has had any significant negative financial impact on the education system, accounting for the benefits it brought to families. If this has not occurred and the policy appears to be financially sustainable, the DoE should consider removing such fees completely to strengthen the system’s free education principle.

Promote promising models and examples of engagement and collaboration with parents, families and communities

One way in which education systems can support schools is by providing them with guidance on how to involve parents and guardians from all backgrounds in the school community. The DoE could incentivise the sharing of practices, leveraging the experience that several schools have successfully developed. For instance, the DoE could take advantage of the experience of specific schools that were particularly successful in tackling student absenteeism or disengagement, or that designed innovative initiatives to engage parents and families. The DoE could rely on the support of the Inspectorate both to identify good practices in schools, and to circulate information and examples that can be of help to other schools. The Inspectorate would be best placed to identify virtuous examples through their evaluations, and, at the same time, they could share these examples with schools that they identify as needing support in the area of parental and community engagement.

Moreover, the DoE could consider specific measures that would foster the engagement of certain groups. This could be the expansion of the HSCL Scheme to schools with particular needs. The DoE could consider a partial expansion of the scheme, or its general mainstreaming, depending on the financial sustainability of this reform. A partial expansion of the scheme could focus on schools that have a particular need for this support, and should be developed in line with an eventual decision of the DoE to extend the supports to all students defined as disadvantaged. A further option could be to provide cultural mediators3 to schools with a high concentration of Traveller and Roma students. Cultural mediators can support schools and teachers to reach out to specific groups of students and their families, facilitate successful communication and promote positive relationships. Cultural mediators could be considered as partners to HSCL Coordinators in situations of particular needs, or to schools that do not have an HSCL Coordinator to foster their engagement with Traveller and Roma families. This would be in line with the practices that are being developed, for instance, under the Supporting Traveller and Roma projects.

Implement more comprehensive data integration and analysis in education policy making

While the primary goal of the DEIS programme is to address concentrations of disadvantage in schools, understanding what proportions of disadvantaged students are targeted by the DEIS programme, accounting for demographic and economic changes, is crucial for informed decision making. Moreover, it is important to know the level of socio-economic disadvantage among those who are and those who are not addressed by the DEIS programme. To this end, it might be useful to use a proxy for socio-economic background that distinguishes levels of disadvantage at a non-binary base. In the short-term, the HP Index data, already available to the DoE, could provide a practical solution to this challenge. It would provide more information on how students with a similar level of socio‑economic disadvantage (of their residence) fare within DEIS and non‑DEIS schools. It would also enhance analyses by focusing on various disadvantaged groups (e.g. Traveller and Roma students). However, in the long-term, merging of various datasets to broaden the understanding of currently non‑observed aspects of socio‑economic disadvantage might be needed. For instance, analysing other administrative sources, such as income data and social protection data, could provide a richer understanding of socio-economic contexts, and the complexity of the multifaceted challenges associated with educational disadvantage. Access to other databases could also lead to a quicker assessment of changing social and economic situations in particular areas. Finally, it is important to improve monitoring by utilising standardised assessments. This could enhance benchmarking of the achievements of DEIS schools with national norms and could help measure the effectiveness of schools. It could also shed more light on students’ experiences progressing from DEIS primary to non‑DEIS post‑primary schools, and stimulate research into the effects of the DEIS label on students and teachers.

Promote research that could provide more information on the causal effects of the DEIS programme

Evaluations of the DEIS programme lack a control group and cannot provide causal implications of the programme on student and school outcomes. This has important policy implications. For instance, difficulties in establishing causal effects impede the accurate measurement of the DEIS programme’s impact on student outcomes and raise questions about the allocation of resources. By collecting more data at the individual student level, gaining access to a broader range of student and household characteristics and assuming a conducive socio-political context, it might be possible for researchers to use a range of statistical techniques that can provide more information on the causal mechanisms of the DEIS programme. Regression discontinuity design is a quasi-experimental method that exploits a discontinuity in the data by dividing the studied population into treatment and control groups based on whether participants fall above or below a specified threshold or cut-off point. Given that the DEIS programme has a specific school‑level cut-off point for new entrant schools, regression discontinuity could be explored to estimate the programme’s effects on school outcomes. Synthetic cohort matching is another method to estimate causal effects by creating a comparison group that resembles the treatment group in observed characteristics. If the DoE broadens the pool of administrative data and accesses a wider range of observable characteristics of students, there may be merit in considering how this technique could be used to estimate the effects of the DEIS programme on student outcomes. It could also be applied in combination with the difference-in-differences method that involves selecting two groups or areas, a treated and a control group, and comparing their outcomes before and after a programme, practice or policy implementation. However, in the event that data fail to meet some of the assumptions associated with these statistical techniques, their applications may be restricted.

Strengthen the use of data at the school level

Strengthening the use of data at the school level is paramount for informed decision-making and effective policy implementation. However, despite the emphasis on data utilisation through the DEIS action planning process, some schools face challenges in analysing this information and formulating SMART targets that are both meaningful and realistic within their specific contexts. The challenges persist due to uncertainties in regard to the use and analysis of data, and the monitoring and evaluation of the targets set. Therefore, schools require additional guidance to enhance their capacity in these aspects. Continuing professional learning activities in this area should be highly applicable, and ideally, participants should use data that are regularly available to them. To this end, working in teams with other school staff members is a promising strategy for implementing data use in schools. Improving the clarity on the interface between school self-evaluation and DEIS action planning was also identified as essential for facilitating school improvement. A comprehensive approach is needed to address these challenges, involving on-going professional development for teachers and principals, clear guidance on setting SMART targets, and improved coordination between self-evaluation and action-planning processes. Thus, improving the use of data in schools should not only involve training for current and prospective principals (as is now offered by Oide) but also external supports provided at a local or central level to school staff members from multiple schools.

Notes

← 1.  Early leaver from education and training refers to a person aged 18 to 24 who has completed at most lower secondary education and is not involved in further education or training. It is expressed as a percentage out of the total population aged 18 to 24.

← 2.  Parents/guardians do not pay for school books up to Junior Cycle.

← 3.  Cultural mediation is a well-known concept and widely used strategy among a variety of institutions and organisations in countries across the OECD. Cultural mediators can support schools and teachers to reach out to specific groups of students and their families, facilitate successful communication and promote positive relationships. They resemble the Community Education Workers in the Supporting Traveller and Roma project in Ireland.