OECD Review of Resourcing Schools to Address Educational Disadvantage in Ireland

Report

Reviews of National Policies for Education

18 July 2024

4. Capacity building for schools to address educational disadvantage

Abstract

This chapter examines policies to strengthen Irish schools’ capacity to promote equity and inclusion in education, with a particular focus on schools benefiting from the DEIS programme. It addresses the initial preparation of teachers and school leaders, their continuing professional learning, working conditions and career development, as well as the professional support that staff receive in and around DEIS schools. The chapter also considers the school improvement process and schools’ capacity to function as learning organisations. It identifies strengths and challenges related to each of these policy areas and provides policy recommendations to address them. The overarching question addressed by the chapter is how to strengthen schools’ capacity to make the best possible use of their resources to support and provide educational opportunities to students who are at greatest risk of educational disadvantage.

Context and features

DEIS schools face unique challenges in improving the outcomes of students at risk of educational disadvantage. Teachers and principals in Ireland do not work in isolation. Since the DEIS programme’s inception in 2005, it has aimed to provide education professionals with additional resources to meet their students’ needs. Building on the experience of DEIS schools, successive reforms of the programme have sought to further refine these supports and strengthen schools’ ability to use them effectively (see Chapter 1). Although the chapter places its focus on teachers and principals in DEIS schools, they are supported by a wide range of professionals who complement and reinforce their professional capacity. Teachers and principals work with guidance counsellors, special education teachers (SET), special needs assistants (SNA), Home School Community Liaison (HSCL) Coordinators, School Completion Programme (SCP) staff and Student Support Teams.

Following a 2015 evaluation of the DEIS programme by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) (Smyth, McCoy and Kingston, 2015[1]), the Department of Education (DoE) initiated a comprehensive review of the programme (Department of Education and Skills, 2017[2]). This review culminated in the “DEIS Plan 2017: Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools”, which set out a vision for the programme’s future, including five key goals and associated interventions. One of the goals articulated by the Plan was the enhancement of the capacity of school leaders and teachers to engage, plan and deploy resources effectively (Department of Education and Skills, 2017[3]). It is against the backdrop of this goal that the following sections of this chapter will evaluate and develop recommendations to further improve Ireland’s capacity building efforts.

Profile of the Irish teaching workforce

In 2022, there were 74 073 full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers in Ireland, of which 41 623 were working in one of the 3 231 primary schools and 32 450 were working in one of the 727 post-primary schools (Government of Ireland, 2024[4]). In total, over 102 000 primary and post-primary teachers were registered with the Teaching Council in March 2023 (The Teaching Council, 2023[5]). Since 2017 the total number of FTE teachers had grown by 9 381 (14.5%) overall (13.2% in primary education and 16.2% in post‑primary education). Over the same period, student numbers had dropped by 0.9% in primary and risen by 13.7% in post-primary education over the same time period. As a consequence, student-teacher ratios have decreased steadily in primary schools and remained fairly constant in post-primary schools (Table 4.1).

Indicator	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Primary teachers (total)	36 773	37 341	37 839	38 604	40 351	41 623
Primary teachers (mainstream)	22 430	22 747	22 970	23 460	23 572	23 596
Primary teachers (other)	14 343	14 594	14 869	15 144	16 779	18 027
Post-primary teachers	27 919	28 474	29 093	30 617	32 145	32 450
Total number of teachers	64 692	65 815	66 932	69 221	72 496	74 073
Average student-teacher ratio in primary schools	15.3	15.2	15.0	14.5	13.7	13.4
Average class sizes in primary schools	24.5	24.3	24.1	23.3	22.8	22.8
Average student-teacher ratio in post-primary schools	12.8	12.7	12.8	12.4	12.2	12.5

Note: Teacher numbers are based on allocated full-time equivalent positions. Mainstream teachers include teaching principals. Other teachers include special education teachers, English language support teachers, administrative principals, and Home School Community Liaison Coordinators, as well as any other full-time teaching staff.

Source: Government of Ireland (2024[4]), Education Indicators for Ireland 2023, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/289186/f6c5f4cd-913e-40c2-9cc0-c48c6d566e14.pdf#page=null (accessed 19 April 2024); and Government of Ireland (2023[6]), Education Indicators for Ireland 2022, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/246552/96fc2eb5-b7c9-4a17-afbc-de288a471b3f.pdf#page=null (accessed 3 January 2024).

While many OECD countries are faced with an ageing teaching population and significant attrition due to retirement, Ireland’s teacher population is young in international comparison. In 2021, 65.2% of teachers in primary to upper secondary education were aged between 30 and 49 (the third highest proportion among OECD countries and compared to an average of 55.0%). The percentage of teachers older than 50 was very low, accounting for 17.6% of teachers in primary education (compared to 34.3% on average across OECD countries) and 26% of teachers in upper secondary education (compared to 41.7% on average across OECD countries) (OECD, 2023[7]). Yet, between 2015 and 2021, the proportion of teachers aged 25-34 shrunk by 5.7 percentage points, which suggests that the teaching population is ageing and may point to challenges in retaining new teachers (European Commission, 2023[8]).

As in nearly all OECD countries, women represent the majority of teaching staff in Ireland’s schools. In primary education, women were particularly over-represented, making up 85% of teachers in 2021, compared to 82% on average across OECD countries. In post-primary education, women represented 69% of the teaching workforce, compared to the OECD averages of 67% in lower secondary schools and 59% in upper secondary schools. Although they account for the majority of the teaching workforce, women are often underrepresented in education leadership roles.

On average across OECD countries participating in the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), women accounted for 68% of the teaching workforce in lower secondary education, but only 47% of principals (OECD, 2019[9]). Although Ireland did not participate in TALIS, national data suggest a similar pattern. According to the DoE statistics for 2022/23, women accounted for 68.4% of the overall school staff in post-primary education, but only 44.0% of principals. In primary education, women accounted for 84.5% of the overall school staff and only 66.7% of principals (Department of Education, 2023[10]).

Teachers’ and school leaders’ initial preparation and qualifications

Teachers’ Initial Education and qualifications

Ireland’s Teaching Council serves as the regulator for the teaching profession in both DEIS and non-DEIS schools. The Council is responsible for setting standards for the teaching profession, registering teachers and ensuring the quality of teachers’ professional learning by accrediting ITE programmes (Department of Education, 2024[11]). According to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022, 90.4% of 15-year-old students’ teachers in Ireland were fully certified (Figure 4.1). Although this was one of the highest proportions among OECD countries, it had declined by 8.1 percentage points since 2015 (OECD, 2023[12]). In 2022, most Irish teachers at both the primary and post-primary levels held a bachelor’s degree (OECD, 2023[13]). Based on principals’ reports in PISA 2022, 37.1% of teachers in Irish schools attended by 15-year-olds held at least a Master’s level qualification or equivalent (ISCED 7) and 75.6% held at least a bachelor’s level qualification or equivalent (ISCED 6). This was slightly below the OECD averages of 44.2% and 78.3%, respectively (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1. Teachers' certifications and highest qualifications (2022)

Percentage of fully certified teachers (in schools attended by 15-year-olds) and teachers' highest qualifications; based on principals' reports

Based on principals’ reports in PISA 2018, there were no significant differences in teachers’ qualifications between DEIS and non-DEIS schools at the post-primary level, i.e. in the proportion of teachers who were fully certified, held Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctoral degrees (Nelis et al., 2021[15]). Likewise, at the primary level, there were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of teachers with additional qualifications between DEIS and non-DEIS schools, according to data from National Assessments of Mathematics and English Reading (NAMER) 2021 (Gilleece and Nelis, 2023[16]).

Aspiring primary and post-primary teachers can follow either a concurrent (undergraduate) or a consecutive (postgraduate) route of Initial Teacher Education. To fulfil their registration requirements, teachers can complete an accredited four-year undergraduate degree (Bachelor of Education [ISCED 6]) targeted at the respective level of education, or a two-year postgraduate degree (Professional Master of Education, PME [ISCED 7]). The PME can follow any undergraduate degree in the case of primary teachers, or any curricular subject in the case of post-primary teachers. In 2011, the duration of ITE courses was extended to allow for a longer school-based component. The duration of undergraduate ITE programmes was extended from three to four years. Postgraduate programmes were lengthened to two years, from 18 months in the case of primary-level qualifications and from 12 months for post-primary qualifications.

The entry criteria of ITE programmes can be an important factor determining the diversity of the ITE intake and – by extension – of the teaching profession. While primary school teachers in Ireland more often follow the concurrent pathway (in 2020/21 there were 1 000 students on concurrent routes and 850 on consecutive routes), post-primary teachers more often follow the consecutive pathway (OECD, 2022[17]). Entry criteria for concurrent ITE programmes in Ireland tend to emphasise Leaving Certificate grades (with the Minister playing a role in setting minimum standards for entry into the profession at the central level). By contrast, admission criteria for consecutive programmes tend to be more diverse across programmes and institutions (sometimes considering work experience, interviews and other criteria as well as more regularly admitting students through further education routes). Given that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to hold the required Leaving Certificate qualifications, this can create barriers for diverse candidates aspiring to teach at the primary level and may explain why earlier studies found the profile of ITE entrants to be more diverse at the post-primary level than at the primary level (Darmody and Smyth, 2016[18]).

In addition, teachers in primary schools must also fulfil an Irish Language Requirement (ILR), i.e. they must be able to teach the Irish language. Although there are several initial teacher education programmes offering alternative pathways for prospective primary teachers without the requisite grades in Irish (e.g. the Turn to Teaching initiative at Maynooth University [NUIM] or the Teacher Education Access Programme [TEAP] at Mary Immaculate College), prospective teachers are usually required to have studied Irish up to the end of post-primary education (the Leaving Certificate Examination) and received an H4 grade.

Evaluations suggest that students in DEIS Post-primary schools were more likely to be exempt from Irish language instruction in 2012-14 (Darmody and Smyth, 2016[19]), which may have created a barrier for disadvantaged students (as well as for students of other nationalities) seeking to enter the teaching profession (The Teaching Council, n.d.[20]). Since then, the process for exemptions from Irish language instruction has been revised to be granted only in “exceptional circumstances”. Nevertheless, in OECD interviews, stakeholders maintained the impression that the ILR acted as a deterrent to prospective teacher students from underrepresented groups.

Teacher induction programme

All newly appointed teachers are required to complete Droichead, a professional induction programme for newly qualified teachers (NQTs). Developed by the Teaching Council in consultation with the profession and launched as a pilot in 2013, Droichead is a school-based, non-evaluative model of teacher induction combining school support with external professional learning. Following a positive evaluation of the pilot in 2016, the programme was rolled out for all NQTs (Smyth et al., 2016[21]). The induction process runs over a period of no less than 60 school days in primary education and 200 teaching hours in post-primary education. During the induction process, schools are advised to set up Professional Support Teams (PST) that are guided and provided support by Oide (formerly by the National Induction Programme for Teachers [NIPT]) to engage in a series of professional conversations, training programmes, portfolio-based learning activities and observations. In addition to this school-based component, NQTs participate in termly NQT Cluster Meetings in their local Education Support Centre as part of the Droichead process and they engage in other professional learning activities identified in consultation with their PST (The Teaching Council, 2017[22]; OECD, 2022[17]).

School leadership positions and qualifications

School leaders1 in Ireland are required to have a relevant teaching qualification for their level of education and, in schools with 80 students or more, at least five years of teaching experience. Although principals are not required to have undergone specific training prior to their appointment, optional professional development programmes are available both for aspiring and in-service school leaders (see below) and prior leadership experience is seen as desirable (OECD, 2022[17]). Principals are selected through an open competition by a selection committee. For most primary schools, this committee includes the chairperson of the board of management and two independent assessors appointed by the patron. Community National Schools, managed by Education and Training Boards (ETBs), have a committee consisting of an ETB nominee, an educational expert and an independent assessor. In both scenarios, the outgoing principal is excluded from the selection process (OECD, 2020[23]; OECD, 2022[17]).

In primary schools with fewer than 169 students, principals are expected to take on teaching duties, acting as teaching principals. In larger primary schools, principals are exempt from teaching duties, serving as Administrative Principals. In DEIS schools, the threshold for the allocation of an Administrative Principal positions is lower – 136 students for DEIS Urban Band 2 schools or 113 students for DEIS Urban Band 1 schools (Department of Education, 2023[24]). In addition to the principal, school leadership teams in Ireland can be comprised of a Deputy Principal, as well as Assistant Principals I and Assistant Principals II (formerly, the Special Duties Teacher). The enrolment threshold for the appointment of an Administrative Deputy Principal exempt from teaching duties is set at 573 for non-DEIS and DEIS Urban Band 2 schools and at 500 students for DEIS Urban Band 1 schools.

Assistant Principals I and II can assume responsibilities for areas such as curriculum and learning, student support and well-being, school improvement or leadership/management and development of staff teams (Department of Education and Skills, 2018[25]). The allocation of Assistant Principal positions to both primary and post-primary schools is based on their FTE teacher allocation (e.g. at the primary level, as of 2022/23, schools with four FTE teachers receive one AP II, schools with nine FTE teachers receive three AP II, schools with 20 FTE teaching posts receive one AP I and four AP II, etc.).

Recruitment, appraisal and career progression of education staff

Following the Department of Public Expenditure’s sanctioning of budget allocations, the DoE is responsible for sanctioning teacher posts in Ireland’s schools and pays the salaries of teachers, as well as most school leaders and special needs assistants (see Chapter 1 for a detailed discussion) (Department of Education, 2024[11]). Each school’s board of management or ETB (in the case of schools established or maintained by one of the 16 ETBs), serves as the employer of teachers, principals and other school staff. As such, they are responsible for their recruitment and dismissal, subject to centrally agreed procedures specified in the Education Act 1998,2 relevant department circulars (Department of Education, 2019[26]), employment legislation and sectoral agreements. Recruitment panels for school staff typically involve members of the school leadership as well as the school’s board of management or ETB committee.

In contrast to most OECD countries, registered teachers in Ireland are not subject to regular appraisals unless there is evidence of significant underperformance. 22 out of 26 OECD countries with a legislative framework covering teacher appraisal in lower secondary education and with available data conducted teacher appraisals regularly in 2015 (the latest year with international comparative information). 11 out of 25 OECD countries also had appraisal processes in place for teachers’ promotions (OECD, 2015[27]). Although the performance of Irish principals is considered part of the school evaluation process and the Teaching Council’s Codes of Professional Conduct set out expectations for teachers’ professional competence, there is no specific appraisal process for them either (OECD, 2020[23]). This makes Ireland part of a minority of OECD countries (12 out of 35) that did not appraise school leaders at the time of the latest OECD international data collection in 2015 (OECD, 2015[27]).

There is no formal career ladder for classroom teachers in Irish primary or post-primary schools that would assign greater responsibilities to teachers, commensurate with their growing expertise over the course of their careers (e.g. as senior or mentor teachers). Nevertheless, teachers can assume additional responsibilities as part of their schools’ leadership teams, e.g. applying for Deputy Principal or Principal positions. Teachers in DEIS Urban primary and DEIS Post-primary schools can apply to serve HSCL Coordinators. During the OECD review visit, teachers reported that this role constituted an attractive opportunity for career development and capacity building (as did working for the Teaching Council, Oide and other agencies).

Continuing professional learning

Providers of continuing professional learning

The DoE offers a range of professional learning models for teachers and school leaders – including several DEIS-specific programmes – through its support service Oide and the Education Support Centres. Oide (an Irish word meaning “teacher” or “tutor”) was launched in September 2023, bringing together four previously separate professional learning services: the Centre for School Leadership (CSL), Junior Cycle for Teachers (JCT), the National Induction Programme for Teachers (NIPT) and the Professional Development Service for Teachers (PDST).

Many of Oide’s professional learning opportunities are provided through the 21 full-time and 9 part-time Education Support Centres. The Centres are Statutory recognised Bodies funded by the Teacher Education Section of the DoE. They are organised in the National Network of Teacher/Education (Support) Centres and its umbrella organisation Education Support Centres in Ireland (ESCI) (ESCI, 2023[28]). Each Education Centre is managed by an annually elected voluntary Management Committee and serves the local education community. In total, the DoE provides annual funding exceeding EUR 60 million for professional development courses provided by Oide and the Education Support Centres. This includes the cost of over 360 seconded teachers providing continuing professional learning (CPL) and funding for substitute teacher cover in schools (Department of Education, 2024[11]).

The DoE also funds other groups, bodies and institutions to design, develop and deliver professional development programmes to support departmental priorities in areas like curriculum change, educational policies and strategies, school leadership or inclusive teaching. The Teacher Professional Networks (TPN) Scheme, for example, is an important source of teacher-led professional learning opportunities. Funded by the DoE, TPN allocates funding and support to Teachers’ Groups and Associations (TGAs) providing continuing professional learning opportunities and peer support to post-primary teachers. To qualify for TPN funding, TGAs submit proposals for events, which should demonstrate a suitable use of support strategies and meaningful links with national priorities (TPN, 2023[29]).

The Teaching Council – in addition to its role in licensing teachers and accrediting ITE programmes – plays an important role in shaping their continuing professional learning. The Council is responsible for advising the Minister for Education on teachers’ CPL, promoting engagement in CPL, conducting research and raising awareness of the benefits of teachers’ professional learning (OECD, 2022[17]). The Teaching Council also developed a Code of Professional Conduct, which sets out standards and expectations for teachers’ professional knowledge, skill, competence and conduct (The Teaching Council, 2016[30]). In 2016, the Teaching Council published Cosán (the Irish word for “pathway”), which seeks to provide a national framework guiding teachers’ continuing professional learning (The Teaching Council, 2016[31]). The Teaching Council aims to implement the framework across the system by 2027, based on an Action Plan developed jointly with the DoE (The Teaching Council and Department of Education, 2016[32]).

The National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS) of the DoE also plays a role in building the capacity of school staff. In addition to casework services, NEPS offers support and development services for school staff, including consultations and professional learning events and presentations. The focus of its offer is the promotion of inclusive practices in schools, ensuring a continuum of support for students and building capability to provide universal, evidence-based approaches and early interventions to promote inclusion, participation and well-being. One of the Service’s flagship professional learning offerings is the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management (IYTCM)Programme, which focuses on strengthening teacher classroom management strategies, improving classroom climate, building students’ socio‑emotional skills and improving collaborative home-school relationships (Box 4.1 below).

Several quality assurance efforts are underway to support the effectiveness of the professional development offer. In 2023, the Educational Research Centre (ERC) published a framework intended to support the evaluation of different forms of formal professional learning, either by providers or external evaluators (Gilleece, Surdey and Rawdon, 2023[33]). In parallel, the DoE has developed an internal framework (the Design and Quality Assurance Process) to inform the design and quality assurance process of learning opportunities provided by its support services (Gilleece, Surdey and Rawdon, 2023[33]). Meanwhile, Oide has engaged in its own efforts to ensure the quality of its professional learning offer. According to Oide, all summer courses include a teacher evaluation at the end and Oide regularly reviews the quality of in-person training courses at the primary and post-primary levels, as well as a sample of online courses. In addition, the DoE Inspectorate evaluates the design and facilitation of a sample of online and in-person professional learning courses each year. All NEPS Support and Development for school staff is informed by evaluations with teachers and educational psychologists that are carried out upon completion of the learning events.

Professional learning opportunities for teachers

Although teachers in Ireland are not required to engage in individual professional development activities beyond the completion of the Droichead induction programme, many continue to engage in “supplementary” or “elective” professional learning throughout their careers (see below) (OECD, 2020[23]). Teachers are responsible for selecting the professional learning opportunities that they want to pursue and are provided with guidance on the DoE priorities. Many of the individual professional learning opportunities provided by Oide (e.g. on newly introduced subject areas) take the form of day-long courses delivered during school hours or two-hour workshops after school hours, provided by seconded teachers in an Education Support Centre. If teachers’ participation in workshops or seminars (e.g. related to new curriculum specifications or changes to education policy) is considered necessary during school hours, teachers can obtain approval for paid substitution (OECD, 2020[34]).

Primary school teachers can take part in courses offered by Oide and other approved providers through the National Network of Teacher/Education (Support) Centres. There is no charge for the learning events provided by Oide. In addition, the Teacher Education Section offers a summer course programme that dates back to the 1970s and around 38 000 teachers completed a summer course in 2022. Courses typically last five days and participating primary teachers can receive up to five days of additional Extra Personal Vacation (EPV) Leave for their attendance (OECD, 2022[17]), provided that the courses are approved by the DoE, on the recommendation of the Inspectorate. Teachers can also follow courses by private providers, many of which are offered online and at varying cost to the teacher.

Since 2011, teachers have been required to engage in a range of “essential activities” outside their regular timetable (including school planning, staff meetings or training) for 36 hours at the primary level and 33 hours per year at the post-primary level (Department of Education and Skills, 2011[35]; Department of Education and Skills, 2014[36]). The school management can decide on the use of most of these “Croke Park” hours, but teachers have discretion over the use of five hours per year at the post-primary level and ten hours at the primary level, which can be used for additional professional learning activities, subject to the school management’s approval.

Besides individual professional learning activities, schools may avail of school-wide training, for example, to support the implementation of large-scale reforms. Principals in primary and post-primary schools may facilitate school-wide learning by pooling “Croke Park” hours or – in exceptional cases where the DoE issues a corresponding circular – school closures are approved to facilitate school-wide professional development. In recent years, these requests were granted at the primary level in both the 2023/24 and 2024/25 school years to avail of sustained in-school support for the introduction of the new Primary Mathematics Curriculum (Circular 0039/2023). At the post-primary level, since the implementation of Junior Cycle in 2014, annual circulars have permitted two school closure days per academic year independent of schools’ DEIS status (one for subject-specific cluster work and one for whole-school planning) (Circular 0028/2023). In addition, full-time teachers were granted 22 hours of professional development time per year (reducing the average weekly teaching time by 40 minutes), with corresponding pro-rata entitlements for part-time teachers. This was made possible through the allocation of an additional 670 FTE posts to schools (OECD, 2020[23]).

Professional learning for school leaders

It is not mandatory for school leaders in Ireland to engage in leadership training prior to assuming their positions, but aspiring school leaders can prepare themselves with a variety of professional learning programmes. Many aspiring school leaders, for example, apply to enrol in an 18-month part-time Postgraduate Diploma in School Leadership (at the master’s equivalent “Level 9”). The programme is offered jointly by the University of Limerick, the University of Galway and University College Dublin. In 2023, the DoE provided partial funding for 300 places, leaving accepted candidates to cover the remaining tuition fees of EUR 2 000 for the course.

In addition, Oide offers multiple training programmes focused on school leadership with the goal of providing continuing professional learning support throughout school leaders’ careers. This includes an 18-month professional learning programme and access to trained mentors for newly appointed principals (Misneach), coaching for established school leaders and cluster support for school leadership teams (Forbairt), as well as a year-long professional learning programme for deputy principals (Tánaiste) and “middle leaders”, i.e. Assistant Principals I or II (Comhar).

The DoE also supports the provision of professional learning through both the Irish Primary Principals' Network (IPPN) and the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals (NAPD). In addition to providing formal training, the two national professional associations (IPPN and NAPD) provide a platform for school leaders to collaborate and engage in horizontal exchange and peer learning (e.g. at conferences).

DEIS-specific professional learning support

Teachers and school leaders in DEIS schools benefit from a variety of DEIS-specific seminars and workshops (e.g. primary school principals and deputy principals participating in the Misneach and Tánaiste programmes can access professional learning on the DEIS action planning process). Teachers in DEIS schools also have priority access to a number of Oide’s continuing professional learning programmes. This includes the intensive numeracy and literacy programmes First Steps, Reading Recovery and Maths Recovery, the latter of which are exclusive to DEIS Urban Band 1 and DEIS Urban Band 2 schools. Other professional learning programmes provided by NEPS and targeted at DEIS schools are the FRIENDS Resilience programmes and the Incredible Years Programme, which focus on classroom management and fostering students’ socio-emotional skills (see Box 4.1 and a more detailed discussion in Chapter 5).

Box 4.1. Examples of professional learning programmes targeted at DEIS schools in Ireland

The Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management Programme

The Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management (IYTCM) Programme was designed to train teachers to employ evidence-based strategies to disrupt patterns of negative behaviour and to promote pro-social behaviour in children between the ages of 4 and 8 although this was subsequently expanded to include older children. Developed in the United States, the programme in Ireland involves five to six full-day workshops delivered over the course of three months. In 2022/23, the IYTCM Programme was delivered 26 times in Ireland, to a total of 513 teachers, based on internal attendance records. While the Programme is targeted at teachers in DEIS schools, two non-DEIS schools also benefited from the training. For the 2023/24 school year, NEPS estimates the cost of delivery for the IYTCM Programme to be EUR 1 400 per teacher (EUR 1 200 of which accounts for the cost of substitution).

The Programme focuses on improving teachers’ classroom management through a range of evidence‑based practices, including by cultivating positive relationships with students and parents, providing children with attention, encouragement and praise, motivating children through incentives and creating behaviour plans. Between workshops, teachers are encouraged to practice their newly acquired skills and techniques.

A systematic review of seven quantitative IYTCM evaluations from England (United Kingdom), Limerick (Ireland), Jamaica, the United States and Wales (United Kingdom) found that the programme – on average – improved teachers’ use of effective classroom management strategies and reduced conduct problems among high-risk children. By contrast, there were no improvements in children’s prosocial behaviour (Nye, Melendez‐Torres and Gardner, 2019[37]).

The randomised controlled trials of the Limerick IYTCM Programme included in the meta-analysis largely found improvements in teachers self-reported use of classroom management techniques (e.g. fewer warnings and threats, less shouting and more modelling of good behaviour) while findings on observed changes in teacher and student behaviour were less conclusive (Hickey et al., 2017[38]; McGilloway et al., 2010[39]; Leckey et al., 2016[40]). A more recent evaluation (without a control group), focusing on the Programme’s impact on teachers’ psychological outcomes in Limerick found a positive change in teachers’ reported self-efficacy, well-being and multiple dimensions related to burnout (Kennedy et al., 2021[41]).

The FRIENDS Resilience programmes

The FRIENDS Resilience programmes are a set of evidence-based anxiety reduction and resilience building programmes, which teach students coping strategies to manage anxiety and cope with challenges and stresses in their daily lives. The programmes are based on cognitive behavioural therapy and designed to be delivered by clinicians as well as appropriately trained and supported teachers in schools. Since 2014, NEPS has systematically offered training in the FRIENDS programmes to Irish teachers, responding to schools’ increased concern about students’ anxiety. Since 2017/18, more than 2 300 teachers in DEIS schools have received training in the FRIENDS programme. Prior to the programmes’ roll-out, NEPS conducted a randomised control trial (RCT) involving NEPS-trained teachers delivering the programmes to over 700 primary students in 2013/14. Students who participated showed a significant reduction in anxiety as well as improvements in their coping skills, school connectedness and self-concept (Ruttledge et al., 2016[42]). A 2012 RCT of the programme’s implementation in Irish post-primary schools found positive effects on reducing overall anxiety and demonstrated its potential for addressing school adjustment difficulties and anxiety associated with the transition to post-primary school (Rodgers and Dunsmuir, 2015[43]).

Source: Department of Education (2023[44]), The Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management (TCM) Programme, https://assets.gov.ie/41215/90a7cb8701ab475cada4a20860dbcd73.pdf (accessed on 22 February 2024); Department of Education (2023[45]), The Friends Programmes, https://assets.gov.ie/41216/fc1f9f7ae6df4749924eea240b9f3b98.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2024).

Other school staff and administrative support

On top of the additional teaching staff in DEIS Urban Band 1 schools, some schools – independent of their DEIS status – benefit from additional non-teaching staff and administrative support intended to strengthen their capacity to support students at risk of educational disadvantage. School secretaries and caretakers are recruited and employed by individual schools and funded by their board of management or ETB.3 As of 2022, salary scales for newly appointed school secretaries in primary and post-primary schools are determined at the national level and paid directly by the DoE, while in-service school secretaries are given the option to join this scheme (Department of Education, 2022[46]). Most smaller schools do not have a full‑time school secretary or caretaker.

DEIS schools also benefit from HSCL Coordinators who support disadvantaged students by promoting active co‑operation between their homes, the school and relevant community agencies (see Chapters 1 and 5). HSCL Coordinators seek to help parents or guardians to support their children and become involved in their education, mainly through home visits but also by organising classes for parents or guardians and other family activities in schools. Full-time HSCL Coordinators are allocated to all DEIS Urban primary and DEIS Post-primary schools (but not to DEIS Rural schools), although, in some cases, HSCL positions are shared between clusters of two or three DEIS schools (Department of Education, 2023[24]). HSCL Coordinators are appointed for a period of five years and they are required to be registered teachers at the school(s) where they will serve.

The 2017 DEIS Plan introduced additional support measures aimed at strengthening schools’ capacity, including the allocation of a dedicated career guidance counsellors to support students in DEIS Post‑primary schools (see Chapters 1 and 5) (Department of Education and Skills, 2017[3]). DEIS schools also receive support through the SCP and their staff, who cover schools in a cluster to support their students outside of school, in close contact with the HSCL Coordinators.

Following the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent economic downturn, schools in Ireland saw cuts to several support services. Some of them have been restored in the intervening years or counterbalanced by the expansion of HSCL and other support services, including those focused on special educational needs. Although core tenets of DEIS – notably the DEIS grant rates – were not affected by the cuts, DEIS Rural schools lost access to HSCL Coordinators with the introduction of the National Recovery Plan 2011‑2014. While the 2012 Budget entailed the removal of funding for 700 guidance counsellor positions (previously allocated for each 500 students in post-primary schools) their allocation has been restored beginning with the 2017/18 school year. In 2023/24, 500 students would be allocated 0.86 FTE guidance counsellors in a non-DEIS post-primary school and 2.01 FTE in a DEIS school.

As part of a move away from the separate provision of support for Roma and Traveller students in 2011, the DoE also removed 40 posts dedicated to supporting families and students of Traveller and Roma communities, as well as the dedicated Resource Teachers for Travellers, which had previously been allocated to primary schools with at least 14 Traveller students. These supports had been highly valued by the community, particularly since only about two thirds of Traveller and Roma students attend DEIS schools, according to stakeholder organisations. The resources for the Resource Teachers for Travellers were channelled to increase the amount of the capitation grant for Traveller and Roma students by EUR 75 at the primary level and EUR 213.50 at the post-primary level (Department of Education, 2024[11]).

Strengths

DEIS schools in the most disadvantaged contexts benefit from additional teaching and leadership resources

Teachers in many DEIS schools are faced with extraordinary challenges in meeting the diverse needs of students with high levels of educational disadvantage. Under the right conditions, smaller classes can help teachers devote more attention to individual students and employ a wider range of pedagogical approaches to meet their needs. While the overall benefits of class size reductions are contested – particularly when compared with similarly costly interventions (OECD, 2018[47]; Krueger, 2003[48]) – there is strong empirical evidence to suggest that disadvantaged students, particularly at lower levels of education, benefit the most from teaching in smaller classes. Studies from large-scale experiments such as the Tennessee’s Student Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) suggest that reducing class sizes from kindergarten through third grade to around 15 students can have a positive effect on achievement and some longer-term outcomes, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds (Chetty et al., 2011[49]; Dynarski, Hyman and Schanzenbach, 2013[50]).

In Ireland, the most disadvantaged primary schools in urban areas (DEIS Urban Band 1) benefit from reduced class sizes (see Chapter 1). While the regular class size in mainstream primary schools is set at 23:1 for the 2023/24 school year, DEIS Urban Band 1 schools have a class size of 17:1 in junior schools, 19:1 in vertical schools (schools with junior and senior classes) and 21:1 in senior schools (Department of Education, 2023[24]). Although other DEIS primary schools (DEIS Urban Band 2 and DEIS Rural) do not benefit from these class size reductions, data from Ireland’s 2021 NAMER assessment of primary school students suggest that class sizes in DEIS Urban Band 2 primary schools were lower than those in non‑DEIS urban schools for second class students (23.1 vs. 26.3 students), albeit not for sixth class students (26.4 vs. 26.9 students) (Gilleece and Nelis, 2023[16]).

Although DEIS Post-primary schools do not benefit from class size reductions either, PISA 2022 data suggest that disadvantaged post-primary schools in Ireland tend to have slightly lower student-teacher ratios as well. Based on principals’ reports, there were on average 12.4 students per teacher in Irish schools attended by 15-year-olds – slightly below the OECD average of 13.2 (Figure 4.2). Since 2018, the student-teacher ratio has decreased slightly by 0.4. In 2022, student-teacher ratios were slightly lower in disadvantaged schools than in advantaged schools (11.6 compared to 12.7 students per teacher).4 A similar pattern is observed on average across OECD countries, although a number of countries (including Belgium, Estonia, France, Japan, Latvia, Spain and Sweden), have significantly more favourable student‑teacher ratios in disadvantaged schools (OECD, 2023[12]).

Figure 4.2. Student-teacher ratio, by schools' socio-economic profile (2022)

Number of students per teacher, based on principals’ reports

The reduced class sizes in DEIS Urban Band 1 schools underline Ireland’s commitment to allocating resources to alleviate educational disadvantage. In interviews with the OECD review team, teachers in DEIS Urban Band 1 schools reported that the class size reductions made a significant difference to their ability to support all learners. As much as DEIS Urban Band 1 schools expressed their content with smaller class sizes, other DEIS schools that did not benefit from this support (including small rural schools) expressed their difficulty in providing differentiated instruction in large classes. Particularly in small rural schools, this issue can be compounded by the necessity for multi-grade teaching.

ITE provides teachers with relevant preparation to support disadvantaged students and to address diverse needs

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 (OECD, 2019[51]; Brussino, 2021[52]). Although ITE programmes mark the beginning and not the end of teachers’ professional learning journeys, they can lay a strong foundation on which teachers can continue building throughout their careers. To do so effectively, ITE programmes need to be regularly updated to reflect major developments affecting the reality of teaching and learning.

Ireland, along with many OECD countries, is placing an increasing emphasis on inclusive education and the provision of differentiated support to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population (The Teaching Council, 2020[53]). 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 development of their peers (Wenner and Campbell, 2017[54]). Teachers are also increasingly expected to take a holistic approach to students’ education that considers both their learning and well-being. The 2023 ITE Policy Statement states that “[t]he wellbeing of all the children and young people who attend our schools must be at the forefront of teachers’ work […]” (Department of Education, 2023, p. 18[55]). The perceived rise in expectations has been a reported source of stress among teachers (Morgan and Craith, 2015[56]), which underlines the importance of a well‑designed ITE system.

The DoE has undertaken clear efforts to ensure that ITE programmes reflect these developments and continue preparing teachers to meet evolving expectations and address diverse students’ needs. The Teaching Council, in co‑operation with the DoE, is responsible for accrediting ITE programmes and developing criteria to guide its review process. Its 2011 “Criteria and Guidelines for Programme Providers”, included inclusive education (covering special education, multiculturalism and disadvantage) as a mandatory element for ITE programmes to cover (The Teaching Council, 2011[57]; Brussino, 2021[52]).

A 2019 report commissioned by the NCSE found that ITE programmes – while providing a broad foundation for student teachers to develop the attitudes, knowledge and skills required to cater effectively for the inclusion of all learners – were sometimes inconsistent in how inclusive practices were embedded across the ITE curriculum (Hick et al., 2020[58]). This difficulty appears to have been addressed in the updated ITE standards (Céim) released by the Teaching Council 2020 and based on which all ITE programmes are currently reviewed for re-accreditation. The updated ITE standards refer to inclusive education as one of the seven core elements required to “underpin all aspects of programmes of ITE” (The Teaching Council, 2020, p. 14[53]).

Inclusive education is defined in Céim to include the “fostering of appropriate learning environments, including digital ones, that support the development of student teachers’ ability to provide for the learning needs of all pupils […]” (The Teaching Council, 2020, p. 14[53]). The Teaching Council defines these learning needs widely to cover both additional learning needs arising e.g. from autism, dyslexia or dyspraxia, as well as “learning needs associated with diverse linguistic, socioeconomic, cultural and ethnic (including Traveller community, Roma) backgrounds” (The Teaching Council, 2020, p. 4[53]). In addition, as part of its “Traveller and Roma Inclusion Strategy 2017-21”, the DoE had requested the Teaching Council examine how ITE programmes dealt with intercultural, anti-racism and diversity (Department of Justice and Equality, 2017[59]).

Providing teachers with opportunities to practise their knowledge and skills in a classroom setting is a core feature of successful ITE programmes (OECD, 2019[60]). Ireland’s 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 to reflect the socio-economic and cultural mix of society” (The Teaching Council, 2020, p. 17[53]). The Céim guidelines already require teachers to “demonstrate an understanding of inclusive education as applicable to” whichever school they are placed in as part of a portfolio-based learning process (Taisce) (The Teaching Council, 2020, p. 18[53]). In addition, the DoE has committed itself to working towards requiring all student teachers at primary and post-primary levels to spend at least one placement in a special education setting and to improve the availability of data to ensure the diversity of school placement settings, including DEIS schools (Department of Education, 2023[55]).

Although 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 review team formed the impression that teachers – on the whole – felt their ITE programmes provided them with a strong position to start their careers. Ireland’s emphasis on inclusive education and supporting students at risk of educational disadvantage is also borne out by international comparative data. In PISA 2022, Irish schools stood out for their commitment to providing additional support for disadvantaged students and engaging in practices that recognise and support students’ diversity. Based on principals’ reports, 62.5% of 15-year-old students had teachers who provided additional support for students from disadvantaged backgrounds at least once a week (compared to 46.8% on average across OECD countries). Furthermore, 45.3% of students were taught to be inclusive of others with different backgrounds (compared to 41.6% on average across OECD countries) (OECD, 2023[61]).

Many formal professional learning opportunities are provided free of charge and the newly consolidated support service has the potential to further improve their accessibility

Even the most effective initial teacher education programme needs to be complemented with a strong system of continuing professional learning to ensure that teachers can continue to update their knowledge and skills once they have entered the classroom. As described above, support services funded by the DoE provide a wide range of free professional learning opportunities for teachers and (aspiring) school leaders. Although the professional learning offer is focused on traditional learning formats (see the discussion further below), the general accessibility of courses and the use of whole-school training days are reflected in a comparatively wide-spread participation among teachers. As of yet, no national statistics are available on the overall participation of individual teachers in CPL, beyond self-reports in the context of NAMER or international surveys like PISA. In 2022, however, 1 672 primary schools (52% of 3 231) received school‑level support from a PDST5 advisor (Government of Ireland, 2024[4]).

In PISA 2022, principals of 15-year-old students in Ireland reported on average that 64.6% of their teachers had taken part in a formal professional development programme during the last three months (Figure 4.3). This was significantly above the OECD average of 52.3%, even though some high-performing countries, like Australia (76.2%), Canada (67.3%), the United Kingdom (80.9%) and Singapore (86.1%), had even higher attendance rates (OECD, 2023[61]). Furthermore, almost all Irish principals reported having developed a professional development plan for their school (97%, compared to 94% on average across OECD countries) and the majority (69%, compared to 61% on average across OECD countries) reported regularly taking actions to ensure that teachers take responsibility for improving their teaching skills (OECD, 2023[12]).

Figure 4.3. Teachers' participation in professional development activities (2022)

Proportion of 15-year-old students’ teachers who had attended a programme of professional development during the previous three months; based on principals' reports

A 2020 OECD review of Ireland’s Senior Cycle described its professional learning system as fragmented and dispersed with responsibilities for professional learning divided across four services (OECD, 2020[34]). The introduction of Oide in 2023 constitutes an important consolidation of professional support services, which has the potential to further facilitate teachers’ and school leaders’ access to relevant professional learning opportunities.

The professional learning offer is responsive to the local needs of teachers and of DEIS schools

Many of Oide’s professional learning opportunities are offered through local Education Support Centres, which seek to adapt their professional learning offer to the needs of the local education workforce. In interviews with teachers and school leaders, the OECD review team formed the impression that the Education Support Centres provided convenient access to formal professional development courses and provided relevant training adapted to their needs. Several additional mechanisms are intended to ensure that the centrally‑provided professional learning offer is responsive to schools’ needs. For example, link inspectors are nominated by the Inspectorate to support Oide during the scoping, design and review of new professional learning programmes and to inform them of training needs that they observe in the field.

In addition to external training, a variety of in-school professional learning opportunities are available to schools, allowing them to receive contextualised support directly adapted to their needs. This is reflected in PISA 2022, where most principals of Irish post-primary schools reported bringing in external expertise to provide and enrich training for their teachers (OECD, 2023[12]). 95.7% of Irish principals reported that their school invited specialists to conduct in-service training for teachers (significantly above the OECD average of 80.4%) and 94.8% reported that their school organises in-service workshops that deal with specific issues the school faces (above the OECD average of 82.8%) (OECD, 2023[61]). Some post-primary schools also encourage teachers who engage in external training to act as multipliers and organise in‑house professional development for their colleagues to share their insights and to model new teaching strategies (Department of Education, 2022[63]).

Oide provides additional professional learning opportunities for teachers and school leaders in DEIS schools, focusing on issues that are specific to their context. The DoE Social Inclusion Unit is funding two positions in Oide, which are focused on providing professional learning in relation to DEIS and inclusion. In addition, at the primary level, DEIS schools have priority access to the intensive Reading Recovery and Maths Recovery programmes (see Chapter 5), which assist teachers in using evidence-based intervention strategies for children struggling with literacy and numeracy. Subject to availability, Oide also provides Reading Recovery training to non-DEIS schools with the highest levels of need and 43% of the schools that received the training in 2023 had non-DEIS status. Maths Recovery training is exclusively offered to DEIS Urban Band 1 and 2 schools.

Oide’s leadership training programmes (Misneach, Tánaiste, Forbairt and Comhar) also include specialised modules on leading teaching and learning in DEIS schools. School leaders who engaged in these programmes and were interviewed during the OECD review visit appeared to consider them well‑tailored to the DEIS context. In a 2023 survey, 54% of principals in post-primary schools that received DEIS status during the programme’s 2022 expansion reported having already completed the Misneach programme. Among primary principals, the proportion was even higher, ranging from 63% to 70% across the different DEIS Bands (Nelis, Gilleece and Dinh, 2024[64]).

DEIS schools also have priority access to Oide‘s team of Professional Learning Leaders (PLLs). Schools can apply for the PLLs’ support through a central database listing the top three priority areas in which they require support. PLLs with the requisite expertise are then assigned to work with the schools and tend to visit a given school between two to six times, working on specific areas of learning, teaching, assessment, action planning or school leadership based on the school’s identified needs (including issues like anti‑bullying and well-being, use of digital resources and STEM teaching). PLLs can work with a school’s entire staff as well as individual teachers or school leaders and they can model effective pedagogical approaches in the classroom. During the 2022/23 school year, DEIS schools received 47% of this bespoke in-school support at the post-primary level and 39% of the bespoke in-school support provided at the primary level.

The Inspectorate’s approach to the evaluation of action planning in DEIS schools emphasises capacity building

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 (see also Chapter 6) (Department of Education, 2022[65]; Department of Education, 2022[66]). 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 action planning process is underpinned by the self-evaluation process, which was introduced in all Irish schools in 2012/13 and consists of six steps: 1. Identifying a focus area; 2. Gathering evidence; 3. Analysing and making judgements; 4. Writing and sharing the report and improvement plan; 5. Putting the improvement plan into action; 6. Monitoring actions and evaluating their impact (see Chapter 6) (Department of Education, 2022[63]). Inspectors are supporting DEIS schools in this process and have completed 709 inspection and advisory visits in DEIS primary schools and 304 in DEIS Post-primary schools in 2022/23 (corresponding to about 38% of all inspection activities of that year). In addition, the Inspectorate is in the process of developing updated guidelines to support the action planning process in DEIS schools, which it will revise based on feedback from schools.

As described in more detail in Chapter 6, DEIS schools develop a specific version of the three-year improvement plans, called the DEIS Action Plan. The Action Plans emphasise the effective use of DEIS supports (including the DEIS grant) to improve the outcomes and experiences of students who are identified as most at risk of educational disadvantage. The plan includes targets and strategies related to the DEIS themes: attendance, retention, transitions, literacy, numeracy, examination attainment (only in post-primary schools), partnership with parents and others. Since 2017, schools have also been asked to include strategies and targets related to three integrated themes (leadership, well-being and continuing professional learning) in their Action Plans (Department of Education, 2022[63]).

One of the inspection models used in the external evaluation of DEIS schools (the Evaluation of Action Planning for Improvement in 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 the DEIS themes (Department of Education, 2022[65]; Department of Education, 2022[66]). Principals are advised to nominate a DEIS coordinator (a role often assumed by a member of the school leadership team) and a DEIS planning team to lead the DEIS action planning process and monitor the school’s progress towards its goals in collaboration with the senior management team (Department of Education, 2022[63]).

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 CPL. Since 2017, DEIS schools have been required to cover their approach to CPL as a stand-alone theme in their Action Plan. This marked an important shift that further emphasises the critical role of capacity building in helping schools achieve their improvement objectives. An evaluation of 78 inspections carried out between 2017 and March 20206 found that “almost half of post-primary and almost all of the primary evaluation reports” remarked on the schools’ provision of CPL (Department of Education, 2022, p. 45[63]).

There appears to remain scope for improvement in the effective use of CPL in DEIS schools, particularly at the post-primary level. Inspection reports suggest that some school leaders require further work in using CPL to bring about effective change at the whole-school and classroom levels in line with their schools’ Action Plans. The Inspectorate also remarked on the need for further guidance on the use of assessment data to evaluate the impact of different teaching approaches (Department of Education, 2022[63]).

Nevertheless, the inspection reports underlined that investments in CPL clearly paid off and complimented the high teaching quality in primary schools with a strong professional learning culture. Inspectors also noted that continuing professional learning – where it was embedded in teachers’ professional practice – was generally well-aligned with the DEIS themes (Department of Education, 2022[63]). To ensure that schools can draw on CPL to address the challenges observed during school inspection visits, the Inspectorate also has a history of working closely with Ireland’s professional development services and deploys link inspectors to work with Oide.

The increasing emphasis on informal learning and communities of practice can strengthen capacity among DEIS schools and beyond

The most effective forms of professional learning tend to be those that are integrated into teachers’ everyday work and involve collecting, evaluating and acting on feedback to modify their practice (Boeskens, Nusche and Yurita, 2020[67]). Communities of practice (CoPs) or professional learning communities (PLCs) 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 (Timperley et al., 2007[68]). Giving teachers the space for collaborative learning can thereby set them on a course of continuous improvement (Ronfeldt et al., 2015[69]). In addition, PISA data suggest that teachers engaging in frequent collaboration have significantly higher levels of professional satisfaction (Mostafa and Pál, 2018[70]).

Ireland recognises the potential of informal learning and teachers are increasingly complementing their traditional training with active engagement in communities of practice (CoPs). Oide has reported that they are actively promoting the formation of professional CoPs and are building them into their professional learning frameworks. Although the practice does not appear to be universal, some of the 16 ETBs are operating CoPs on specific topics or for teachers of specific subjects. These constitute a promising avenue to strengthen teachers’ capacity through horizontal collaboration, particularly if they were to receive more systematic support.

The DoE has also established CoPs for DEIS school leaders, in collaboration with the Inspectorate and the Education Support Centres. This initiative is aimed at alleviating capacity challenges identified by the Inspectorate in a 2022 report (Department of Education, 2022[63]). The CoPs will provide a forum for DEIS leaders to share and build on each other’s knowledge, practices and experience, taking a coaching approach to address issues as they arise. Since 2023, CoPs have been established in 11 Education Support Centres and Oide is training facilitators to run CoP meetings. One of the schools (non-DEIS primary) visited by the OECD review team reported that their principals and deputy principals benefited from peer-learning in local support groups (and through informal private channels of communication). These informal practices could be built on and supported explicitly to create an even stronger culture of peer-learning, from which all schools can benefit.

Challenges

Staff shortages across a range of positions create a challenging context for both DEIS and non-DEIS schools to meet learners’ needs

Over the past few years, Ireland has experienced staff shortages across a range of positions in and around schools and data suggest that students in disadvantaged schools and areas may suffer the most from teacher shortages. Responsibility for the recruitment of teachers in Ireland lies with schools’ boards of management and the DoE does not collect school-level or regional-level data on teacher vacancies. Although the DoE has undertaken efforts to predict the demand for teachers based on demographic projections, as part of its Teacher Supply Action Plan (Department of Education, 2020[71]) and supporting the supply of teachers is one of the DoE priorities (Department of Education, 2024[11]), there is currently no regular monitoring of indicators related to teacher shortages at the central level. Nevertheless, national and international survey data point to significant shortages experienced in Ireland’s schools.

According to a survey by the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland (ASTI), 81% of school leaders in post-primary schools had to employ unqualified teachers, 48% had to increase teachers’ workload and 34% re-assigned special education teachers to mainstream classes in the 2022/23 school year as a result of shortages (ASTI, 2023[72]). In PISA 2022, 22.7% of 15-year-old students in Ireland attended a school whose principal reported that their capacity to provide instruction was hindered a lot by a lack of teaching staff and another 45.1% reported that it was hindered to some extent. This was significantly above the OECD averages of 13.0% and 33.7%, respectively, and only surpassed by perceived shortages in Belgium, Estonia, Germany and the Netherlands (OECD, 2023[12]). The percentage of 15‑year‑old students whose instruction was reportedly hindered (to some extent or a lot) by a lack of teachers has also increased markedly, by 23.0 percentage points, since 2018 (ibid.).

Teacher shortages in Ireland, at least at the post-primary level, particularly affect students in disadvantaged schools and areas. In a survey of Irish primary school principals carried out with NAMER 2021, teacher recruitment difficulties were widely reported in almost 50% of both DEIS and non‑DEIS schools, while retention issues were reported by 17%-23% of principals with no significant differences between DEIS and non-DEIS schools (Gilleece and Nelis, 2023[16]). Yet, evidence from PISA 2022 suggests that, at least at the post-primary level, the impact of teacher shortages is significantly more pronounced in disadvantaged schools, where 79.9% of principals reported that shortages hindered instruction, compared to 58.1% in advantaged schools (Figure 4.4). This difference was one of the largest observed among OECD countries and 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 because they were perceived as difficult teaching environments.

Figure 4.4. Shortages of teaching staff by schools’ socio-economic composition (2022)

Percentage of students whose school's capacity to provide instruction is hindered to some extent or a lot by a lack of teaching staff; based on principals' reports

While many OECD countries have experienced teacher shortages in recent years, their patterns and causes vary across contexts, often involving a complex combination of factors related to demographic and labour market development as well as the profession’s attractiveness (OECD, 2019[60]). Interviews with stakeholders in Ireland, for example, suggest that the high cost of living may have aggravated schools’ recruitment difficulties, particularly in the capital region, which is home to some of the country’s most disadvantaged schools. Indeed, in PISA 2022, the lack of teaching staff was particularly pronounced in Dublin, where 78.6% of principals reported that the lack of teachers hindered instruction, compared to 67.8% across the country. Yet, reports of shortages were similarly high in small towns of 3 000 to 15 000 inhabitants (71.1%) and towns of 15 000 to 100 000 inhabitants (74.6%) (OECD, 2023[61]).

In many OECD countries, teachers’ well-being and problems related to teachers’ long-term absenteeism – while long-standing challenges – have also come into sharp relief since the COVID-19 pandemic. Even though teachers in DEIS schools receive a wide range of support and do not face their professional challenges in isolation, disadvantaged schools in Ireland appear to be the hardest hit by teacher absenteeism. In PISA 2022, 31.2% of 15-year-old students in Ireland attended schools whose principal reported that students’ learning was hindered by teacher absenteeism (broadly in line with the OECD average of 26.5%). In disadvantaged schools, 42.0% of students were hindered in their learning by teacher absenteeism, compared to 19.8% in advantaged schools. This 22.2 percentage point gap was statistically significant, well above the OECD average of 7.4 percentage points and the sixth largest gap observed among OECD countries (OECD, 2023[61]).

It is critical to better understand and address the causes of teacher absenteeism in Ireland and to develop effective processes to replace absent teachers in the classroom, not least since teacher absences have been shown to negatively affect students’ learning outcomes (Herrmann and Rockoff, 2012[73]). As discussed in Chapter 5, the OECD review team has observed examples of highly motivated school staff volunteering time to support disadvantaged students (e.g. to organise homework or breakfast clubs, particularly in schools that did not benefit from additional resources for these activities). Although commendable at the individual level, this reliance in the face of staff or capacity shortages raises concerns around sustainability at both the individual and system level and its impact on teachers’ well-being needs to be taken seriously.

The staff shortages affecting Irish schools are not limited to teachers. Shortages of assisting staff (such as pedagogical support, administrative staff or management personnel) appear to aggravate the problem in some schools. In PISA 2022, 40.0% of 15-year-old students attended schools whose principal reported that instruction was hindered (to some extent or a lot) by a lack of assisting staff – a significant proportion, and slightly above the OECD average of 37.2% (OECD, 2023[12]). Moreover, 22.2% students attended schools where instruction was hindered by inadequate or poorly qualified assisting staff (a little above the OECD average of 19.3%) (ibid.).

Staff shortages within Ireland’s schools are compounded by those of relevant external support services on which schools rely to support their most disadvantaged students in particular. This concerns, for example, NEPS and the Tusla Education Support Service (TESS, formerly the Education Welfare Service), whose lack of capacity significantly constrained their ability to follow up on students’ long-term absences. The OECD review team gained the impression that the most effective DEIS schools were able to take on much of the work that might otherwise be provided by overstretched health services, but not all can be expected to compensate for these capacity challenges.

The Irish government has already put some measures in place to incentivise students to join the teaching profession, notably announcing EUR 4 million of funding to introduce an incentive scheme for newly qualified teachers. Primary and post-primary teachers joining the profession with professional master's degrees (PME) in education may be eligible for an incentive payment of EUR 2 000, following the completion of the 2024/25 school year (Houses of the Oireachtas, 2023[74]). Furthermore, the Teaching Council has introduced regulations allowing for the registration of third and fourth year undergraduate student teachers to cover substitutable vacancies (as of November 2023, 2 700 student teachers had registered under this route). In a further effort to ease short-term supply issues, retired teachers have been offered abatements for returning to teach for up to 50 days in 2021, 2022 and 2023 (Department of Education, 2024[11]).

Ensuring that the supply of teachers meets demand while maintaining and improving the quality of the teaching workforce is a complex policy challenge. Given the need to factor in longer-term demographic and other trends and the risk of creating oversupply issues in the future, addressing teacher shortages requires careful monitoring (Santiago, 2002[75]). In Ireland, the Teaching Council is responsible for advising the DoE on teacher supply issues and contributing to efforts to forecast supply and demand. Between 2014 and 2015, the Teaching Council led a technical working group, including representatives of the Higher Education Authority, to inform future planning and develop a teacher supply model (OECD, 2019[60]; The Teaching Council, 2015[76]). This work has since been continued under the aforementioned Teacher Supply Action Plan (Department of Education, 2020[71]). The model’s forecasts (which predicted a consistent oversupply of new primary and post-primary teachers between 2022 and 2036) and their methodological assumptions attracted considerable criticism from teacher unions and other stakeholders (Harford and Fleming, 2023[77]).

Professional learning support is critical to strengthen capacity in DEIS schools, but multiple factors limit teachers’ engagement in continuing professional learning

Expectations for teachers’ engagement in continuing professional learning are comparatively low and there is no regular staff appraisal to guide it

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. This is particularly true in the context of DEIS schools, where students’ needs are highly complex and require teachers to acquire skills and engage in pedagogical practices that were not necessarily covered in their initial teacher education. Although many teachers in Ireland are highly motivated to improve their practice through CPL, they are not required to engage in regular professional learning (Department of Education, 2024[11]).7 Instead, teachers’ individual professional learning largely depends on a high level of intrinsic motivation and their schools’ capacity to support this practice, leading to variable levels of engagement.

The Teaching Council’s Cosán framework for teachers’ professional learning constitutes an important step in promoting the concept of teachers as life-long learners. Nevertheless, Ireland’s lack of general requirements for primary and post-primary teachers to participate in CPL stands out in international comparison (OECD, 2022[78]). In 2021, among the 35 OECD countries and other participants with available information, Ireland was one of only six that did not require teachers to engage in PD or where requirements only applied to teachers in specific circumstances. In Ireland’s case, once teachers have completed the mandatory CPL as part of their Droichead induction, they are only required to engage in further training should they wish to take on additional responsibilities, e.g. for the induction of newly qualified teachers, which requires three days of Professional Support Team training. Even if CPL requirements or entitlements cover a relatively small amount of time, they can foster a shared understanding that CPL is a regular part of teachers’ professional practice and provide a basis for creating a policy environment that is supportive of teachers’ professional learning needs (ibid.).

DEIS schools have priority access to certain intensive training courses (such as Reading Recovery or the Incredible Years programme) and there is no charge for teachers’ voluntary participation in DoE funded CPL during the school year. Nevertheless, other barriers – including the organisation of substitution for teachers engaging in CPL – can limit their engagement in practice. Following the COVID‑19 pandemic in September 2020, only 30% of primary principals and 10% of post-primary principals reported that they succeeded in finding substitute cover for all teacher absences (Department of Education, 2022[79]). Significant progress has been made at the primary level, with the establishment of local Teacher Supply Panels starting in 2019 (Department of Education, 2019[80]). During the 2023/24 school year, 166 such panels were in operation, providing nearly 2 900 schools with access to substitute teachers to cover short term absences of not more than four weeks. At the post-primary level, no equivalent system is in place.

More emphasis could also be placed on providing DEIS teachers with a perspective of continuous improvement and guidance to ensure that their professional learning contributes to wider school improvement objectives (OECD, 2019[60]). Staff development is considered during schools’ self‑evaluations, the DEIS action planning process, and in quality conversations between teachers and their senior management personnel. Nevertheless, Ireland is among a minority of OECD countries that do not engage in the systematic, regular appraisal of teachers or school leaders (OECD, 2015[27]).

In 2015, 25 of 35 OECD countries used the results of regular teacher appraisals to inform decisions about teachers’ professional development activities (OECD, 2015[27]). The lack of formal legislative frameworks or centrally mandated practices related to individual teachers’ regular appraisals in Ireland does not preclude such processes taking place at the school level. In the school questionnaire for PISA 2022, for example, a large share of Irish principals reported appraising their teachers and that this practice had a moderate (36.7%) or a large (12.0%) impact on their opportunities for professional development activities (close to the OECD averages of 35.8% and 11.9%, respectively) (OECD, 2023[61]). Yet, without formalising these practices, it will be difficult to ensure that teachers in all schools have a chance to receive regular feedback on their practices. It also misses an opportunity to support school leaders in using regular staff appraisals to advance the goals of DEIS action planning and to support disadvantaged students.

The culture of informal school-based professional learning is unevenly developed

In addition to the lack of requirements for individual professional learning and regular teacher appraisals, Ireland’s culture of informal school-based professional learning is still incipient in many schools. There appears to be a strong interest in peer-learning among teachers and collaboration is encouraged as part of the school self-evaluation process (Department of Education, 2022[81]) as well as the Inspectorate’s “Looking at Our School Quality Frameworks for Primary and Post-Primary Schools” (Inspectorate, 2022[82]; Inspectorate, 2022[83]). Nevertheless, 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 school leaders or by peers).

As discussed above, school leaders in Ireland clearly recognise the value of professional learning. However, relatively few principals or senior staff members in schools observe their teachers’ lessons. Only 43.9% of students had principals who reported this practice in PISA 2022 – one of the lowest across the OECD and compared to 77.3% on average (OECD, 2023[12]). Although teachers in DEIS schools might benefit the most from continued support, teachers in disadvantaged schools were significantly less likely to benefit from lesson observations than those in advantaged schools (Figure 4.5).

Figure 4.5. Differences in lesson observation practices, by school characteristics (2022)

Proportion of students in advantaged and disadvantaged schools whose principal or senior staff observed lessons to monitor the practice of teachers; based on principals' reports

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. Overall, only 23% of principals (compared to 58% on average across OECD countries) reported providing feedback to teachers based on observations of instruction in the classroom at least once a month (OECD, 2023[12]). Not only were teachers in Ireland’s disadvantaged schools among the most likely to never or almost never receive this type of feedback (34.1%, compared to 8.4% on average across OECD countries – behind Portugal and Greece only), but they were also significantly more likely to go without this feedback than their peers in advantaged schools (15.4%) (OECD, 2023[61]). Although the reasons for this pattern are unclear, it is almost unique among OECD countries and a cause for concern. In contrast to most OECD countries, it is more common for teachers in Ireland to have their lessons observed by someone external to the school, rather than by a colleague within the school, according to PISA 2022 data (OECD, 2023[61]).

Not only are lesson observation practices less common in Ireland than in other OECD countries, there is also evidence of significant inequities across schools. Irish teachers were significantly more likely to engage in peer-review practices in socio-economically advantaged schools (70.7%) than in disadvantaged schools (42.9%) (Figure 4.6). This discrepancy of 26 percentage points was the largest observed among OECD countries (OECD, 2023[12]). The same was true for lesson observations by principals or senior staff, who were 28 percentage points more likely to engage in these practices in advantaged schools (70.2%) than in disadvantaged schools (42.5%) – again, by far the biggest gap observed among OECD countries (Figure 4.5). Although no PISA 2022 data on lesson observations in DEIS schools have been published yet, the fact that this practice was least common among socio-economically average schools (31.4%) may suggest that DEIS schools are working more intensively with observations than they would otherwise (ibid.).

Figure 4.6. Differences in teacher peer-review practices, by school characteristics (2022)

Proportion of students in advantaged and disadvantaged schools whose teachers engaged in peer reviews; based on principals' reports

A high level of students’ needs places a strain on DEIS schools’ capacity in several priority areas

Key staff within and around DEIS schools would benefit from additional support in addressing their students’ needs

Overall, principals in Ireland are 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 on average across OECD countries). Teachers are not expected to address all of their students’ needs or to address them on their own. Irish teachers are supported by and work with a wide range of professionals, particularly in DEIS schools, including guidance counsellors, special education teachers (SET), special needs assistants (SNA), HSCL Coordinators, SCP staff and Student Support Teams. Yet, high levels of students’ needs are placing a strain on the entire support system and the OECD review team formed the impression that DEIS schools were particularly affected by limited capacity and the support available to key staff.

HSCL Coordinators play a key role in supporting the parents or guardians of students most at risk of educational disadvantage in DEIS schools (see Chapter 5). Given that HSCL Coordinators are recruited exclusively among teachers, their responsibilities and task profile – consisting predominantly of home visits and meetings with parents (Weir et al., 2018[84]) – require significant preparation and adjustments from new appointees. New HSCL Coordinators receive an induction booklet, a half-day online orientation, and four days of in-person induction during their first year (two at the start and two in the middle of the school year), which is organised and delivered through TESS (TESS, 2021, p. 13[85]). Schools are also advised to identify new HSCL Coordinators early to allow for a transition period during which they can shadow the acting Coordinator in their school.

During their first year, HSCL Coordinators also receive training in Motivational Interviewing (MI) and on the SCP Intake Framework, which is delivered to staff of all three stands of TESS and designed to facilitate joined-up thinking and working across the SCP, the Educational Welfare Service (EWS), and the HSCL Scheme to best serve the most marginalised children and families in Ireland. From years 2-4 of their tenure, HSCL Coordinators receive two further days of training and have the option to submit written requests for additional training, if approved by their principals and boards of management. HSCL Coordinators are also required to participate in regular local cluster meetings, which are organised every six to eight weeks. Clusters are also encouraged to set up a buddy system matching new Coordinators with more experienced peers and each HSCL Coordinator is assigned one of TESS Integrated Services Managers (ISMs) to whom they can address their questions and concerns in regular meetings.

Since the Scheme’s introduction in 1990, the training of HSCL Coordinators has undergone a series of transformations as the number of Coordinators expanded significantly over the decades. Notably, over the years, there has been a shift in emphasis from in-person induction training towards a model of continued and cluster-based support. In a 2017 survey, HSCL Coordinators expressed their general satisfaction with the Scheme, including its pre-service training, and praised the support of the PDST. Nevertheless, half of the Coordinators indicated their dissatisfaction with the continuing professional learning available to them (Weir et al., 2018[84]). Since then, the training for HSCL Coordinators has evolved, expanding the amount of professional development beyond their first year. Ensuring the quality of HSCL Coordinators’ work is one of the Inspectorate’s current priorities and the OECD review team has been informed of plans to evaluate the quality of HSCL provision in a sample of schools over the course of 2024, and to publish a report on the findings.

The OECD review team formed the impression that at least some of the capacity challenges experienced by DEIS schools can be explained by a rise in the level and complexity of students’ needs, as well as the support schools are expected to provide. In many respects, schools are seen as a hub for different actors to interact and to provide children with wrap-around support services in a safe environment, or at least to direct them to appropriate sources of external support.

Many of the actors interviewed during the OECD review visit have embraced this vision of schools in the spirit of a holistic approach to learning. Nevertheless, it was also apparent 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 impeding children’s education (including psychologists, speech and language therapists, counsellors, occupational therapists, etc.).

NEPS has seen the need for a whole-school approach to using trauma-informed practices and launched an e-Learning course on the subject in 2023 that has been met with high demand (NEPS, 2023[86]). In addition, NEPS rolled out a Pilot Programme of Counselling and Wellbeing/Mental Health Support (see Chapter 5). Nevertheless, NEPS has acknowledged a shortage of educational psychologists in Ireland, compared with benchmarking countries, and there are limits to the gaps that can be filled by teachers’ continuing professional learning.

A lack of administrative capacity weakens pedagogical leadership in some schools

Teachers and school principals in many OECD countries report spending a significant amount of their working time on administrative tasks (Boeskens and Nusche, 2021[87]). An excessive administrative burden can prevent principals from providing effective pedagogical leadership for their schools and distract teachers from their core pedagogical work related to teaching and learning. Ensuring that schools have sufficient administrative capacity can, therefore, play an important role for in ability to provide high‑quality education and to meet all learners’ needs. As discussed in Chapter 6, administrative and technical capacity also play an important role in enabling DEIS schools to engage in data-informed improvement planning and the collection and analysis of data.

Among OECD countries, there is a significant variation in the level of administrative support available in schools. In international comparison, post-primary schools in Ireland employ relatively few administrative personnel besides the school management (such as receptionists, secretaries and administration assistants). In PISA 2022, principals reported that there were approximately 290 students per member of administrative staff on average – similar to Estonia, Germany and Ireland, above the OECD average of around 200, and significantly above countries like Japan, Korea and the United Kingdom, which had fewer than 120 students per administrative staff member (OECD, 2023[61]). Yet, the number of support staff is not the only or even the most important factor that plays a role in reducing administrative workload. In England (United Kingdom) and Korea, for example – among the countries that employ the most administrative support staff – teachers still devote the largest share of their working time to administrative tasks (OECD, 2019[60]).

Ireland acknowledges the distinct challenges faced by teachers and school leaders in DEIS schools and provides them with additional administrative support to meet them. As discussed above, DEIS Urban Band 1 schools with an enrolment of more than 500 students benefit from an administrative deputy principal exempt from teaching duties (the threshold is set at 573 for non-DEIS and DEIS Urban Band 2 schools). In addition, DEIS schools are allocated a full-time administrative principal position at lower levels of enrolment than non-DEIS schools (Department of Education, 2023[24]). In interviews with the OECD review team, schools reported that this additional support made a significant difference to their work, with some using it to support teaching and learning directly while others used the added capacity within the leadership team to engage in fundraising for pedagogical projects. Nevertheless, some schools – particularly small schools and those with exceptionally high levels of disadvantage – reported struggling with a high administrative burden and limited capacity. Most small schools, for example, do not have a full-time secretary and principals are exempt from teaching duties only in DEIS schools with upwards of 136 (DEIS Urban Band 2) or 113 (DEIS Urban Band 1) students.

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 to improve the well‑being and education outcomes of minority and disadvantaged students (Brussino, 2021[52]). Evidence, mostly from the United States, suggests that teachers from similar backgrounds can improve the academic outcomes of ethnic minority and low-income students (Egalite, Kisida and Winters, 2015[88]; Dee, 2004[89]; Goldhaber, Theobald and Tien, 2015[90]). A diverse teacher population can also provide disadvantaged students with role models, contribute to their sense of belonging at school and has been shown to reduce drop-out rates and raise academic aspirations (Egalite and Kisida, 2017[91]; Gershenson et al., 2022[92]). In interviews with the OECD review team, for example, stakeholders reported that Traveller and Roma students, while generally underrepresented in preschool education, responded positively to early childhood education and care offers with a significant representation of individuals from the Traveller and Roma community among its staff.

The diversity of the teaching workforce has been a policy focus in Ireland for over a decade (Keane, Heinz and Mc Daid, 2022[93]), particularly since national datasets have brought to light the relatively homogenous socio-demographic profile of applicants and entrants into ITE programmes (Keane and Heinz, 2015[94]). Since at least 2013, 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 (Darmody and Smyth, 2016[18]). Improving access to ITE by students from underrepresented target groups has been identified as a policy goal since the “National Plan for Equity of Access to Higher Education 2015-2019”. In 2015, these target groups included a range of underrepresented socio-economic groups, first-time mature students, students with disabilities, part-time/flexible learners, further education award holders, and Traveller students (Higher Education Authority, 2015[95]).

The current “National Access Plan for 2022-28” once again includes the goal to increase teacher diversity by supporting equity of access, participation and success in ITE for three priority groups: students who are socio‑economically disadvantaged, members of Traveller and Roma communities, and students with disabilities, including intellectual disabilities. Targets have been set to increase the number of Traveller students among new entrants to higher education from 33 to 150 (Higher Education Authority, 2022[96]). In addition, the “Traveller and Roma Inclusion Strategy 2017-21”, called on the DoE to support the higher education sector in taking measures to encourage and support individuals from the Traveller and Roma communities to become teachers (Department of Justice and Equality, 2017[59]).

Nevertheless, Traveller students remain severely underrepresented in higher education and there is little data on the representation of Roma students. The 2015 Higher Education Access Plan set the target to increase the number of Traveller students among new entrants to higher education (which constituted around 0.1% at the time) from 35 to 80. By 2020, the target was largely missed, with the overall number remaining at 33, following a modest increase in 2017 and 2019 (Higher Education Authority, 2022[96]). Data on Roma students among entrants to higher education have only been collected by HEA since 2020/21, in line with the census’s first-time inclusion of “Roma” as an option in its ethnicity question in 2022.

A number of diversity projects addressing both primary and post-primary ITE have been underway since 2017, funded with EUR 5.4 million for a six-year period by the HEA “Programme for Access to Higher Education” (PATH) (Keane, Heinz and Mc Daid, 2022[93]; Department of Education, 2023[55]). This included extra support for students from target groups to transition from school into ITE as well as the establishment of direct entry routes for students with further education qualifications to diversify the intake of ITE programmes (Department of Education, 2023[55]). Funding from PATH also benefited the Marino Institute of Education’s Migrant Teacher Project, which supports qualified, internationally-educated immigrant teachers to enter the Irish primary and post-primary education systems (MIE, 2024[97]).

Nevertheless, teachers in Ireland still fail to 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 (Brussino, 2021[52]). In light of the range and complexity of factors that can contribute to the lack of diversity among teachers, efforts to further strengthen the monitoring of the ITE population, as outlined in the “National Access Plan for 2022-28”, are an important step to improve the problem’s diagnosis and to ascertain which policy interventions hold promise.

Policy recommendations

Address staff shortages through targeted efforts to attract and retain diverse professionals for a career in disadvantaged 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, particularly the most vulnerable students in DEIS schools, who may require more intensive and coordinated support from a range of professionals. 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 should, therefore, further strengthen its efforts to monitor the supply and demand of teachers and the factors that drive them, particularly in disadvantaged schools. To ensure that the teaching profession reflects the diversity of Ireland’s students, efforts to alleviate staff shortages should also pay attention to attracting and retaining candidates from underrepresented groups. Greater flexibility in the recruitment of non-teaching staff could ease shortages among key support roles.

Strengthen the monitoring of the teacher supply and demand to identify and address the causes of staff shortages in disadvantaged schools

Teacher shortages in Ireland, as perceived by post-primary school principals in PISA, have intensified over recent years and reached one of the highest levels among OECD countries in 2022. These shortages are particularly pronounced in disadvantaged schools and need to be addressed to ensure equal learning opportunities for all students. A significant proportion of principals reported that the lack of staff compromises their quality of instruction and students at risk of educational disadvantage were likely to suffer the most, as schools resort to unqualified and out-of-subject teachers or cancel classes. The factors affecting the supply of teachers are complex and measures to increase it can have significant fiscal consequences and implications for the long-term balance of teacher supply and demand. As described above, Ireland currently lacks sufficient evidence and an effective system to monitor teacher supply and demand. An effective strategy for workforce planning in Ireland must, therefore, be based on a more thorough understanding of both the extent of teacher shortages and their underlying causes.

As part of its Teacher Supply Action Plan, the DoE has undertaken important efforts to project teacher supply and demand at the primary and post-primary levels, based on the limited data available at the central level (primarily demographic projections and teacher payroll data) (Department of Education, 2020[71]). These efforts have revealed significant data gaps preventing central authorities from generating disaggregated insights (e.g. concerning the number of retirements, resignations and new registrations at the regional level) and demonstrated the importance of purpose-led data collections and a more continuous monitoring of teacher supply and demand. The public controversy surrounding the methodology of previous efforts to predict teacher demand and supply highlights the importance of engaging stakeholders in this process to produce transparent forecasts that can be widely accepted (Harford and Fleming, 2023[77]).

A range of factors can impact the teacher supply to varying degrees (e.g. the cost of living in large urban areas, teachers going abroad, a lack of job stability or competitive salaries, career changes, long-term absences, concentrations in certain subject areas, policy changes e.g. related to inclusion etc.). Further research is needed to reach a consensus on the extent to which these factors contribute to teacher shortages in Ireland and which factors matter the most in the case of disadvantaged schools. If stark differences in the cost of living across regions and cities persist and emerge as a central barrier to teacher recruitment in DEIS Urban schools, for example, Ireland may need to explore the feasibility of incentives or allowances to ensure that teachers can afford a decent standard of living regardless of their school’s location (such as the London weighting in England [United Kingdom]).

To guide central efforts to address teacher shortages in DEIS schools 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. The decentralised system of teacher recruitment has complicated attempts to get a better understanding e.g. of the number of unfilled vacancies and their concentrations in specific subject areas or geographical areas. Nevertheless, international examples from decentralised systems show ways in which local data on teacher supply and demand can be collected, harmonised and made available to facilitate monitoring at the national level to inform effective workforce planning (Box 4.2). On-going efforts by the DoE to develop a strategic workforce plan and to improve the monitoring of vacancies should be continued and designed to identify potential inequities in DEIS schools’ ability to attract and retain high-quality teachers. If confirmed, further action will need to be taken to ensure that DEIS schools are as well positioned to attract teachers as non-DEIS schools.

Box 4.2. Monitoring teacher supply and demand in Australia and Ontario (Canada)

Harmonising data on teacher supply at the national level in Australia

Starting in 2017, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership was tasked with implementing the Australian Teacher Workforce Data strategy, which sought to unite and connect existing data on initial teacher education and the teacher workforce across all systems and sectors. In doing so, it provided nationally consistent, longitudinal data on the teaching profession, the teacher supply pipeline and teachers’ career trajectories (AITSL, 2018[98]). Based on the strategy, the Institute now publishes annual reports on the teacher workforce (AITSL, 2023[99]) and on the ITE pipeline, including information on commencements, enrolments, completions and attrition rates (AITSL, 2024[100]).

Monitoring of demand and supply by a self-regulating professional body in Ontario (Canada)

In Ontario (Canada), the College of Teachers is the province’s self-regulatory body of the teaching profession and supports forecasting and steering with information on the demographic characteristics of the current workforce. The college surveys its members on an annual basis and the resulting report, “Transitions to Teaching”, provides information on teachers’ initial and additional qualifications earned throughout their career. Based on these data, the province can anticipate teacher qualification needs and gear admissions accordingly (Ontario College of Teachers, 2023[101]). Higher education authorities may also be involved in monitoring and forecasting. In Ontario, the province’s Higher Education Quality Council provides research and policy advice, including on labour market trends and outlooks for teaching (HEQCO, 2024[102]).

Source: OECD (2019[60]), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en.

Once an effective system for monitoring the supply and demand of teachers is in place, there should also be a reflection on establishing closer links between the forecast demand and the provision of places in ITE programmes (Department of Education, 2020[71]). The Minister determines the number of study places on state-funded primary ITE programmes in Ireland, but does not currently set quotas for post-primary programmes or those offered by private providers (OECD, 2020[23]). Although many OECD countries impose enrolment caps, at least in some fields of higher education (in some cases based on measures of labour market needs) (OECD, 2021[103]), Ireland does not systematically link resourcing decisions concerning the supply of publicly funded ITE places in higher education institutions to future demand (OECD, 2022[104]).

Continue efforts to attract and retain diverse candidates for the teaching profession

Strategies to resolve the teacher shortage in the short-term and medium-term should go hand in hand with on‑going efforts to ensure that teaching remains an attractive, intellectually stimulating long-term career with the potential to attract bright and diverse candidates to work in schools. Although the diversity of Ireland’s teaching workforce has been on the policy agenda for a long time and important initiatives have been launched to attract candidates from target populations to ITE, they have so far largely fallen short of their goals. It thus remains imperative for the DoE to continue working with HEIs to improve diversity in the teacher pipeline. At the same time, the development of policy strategies should take a more holistic approach based on a thorough analysis of the factors limiting diverse candidates’ entry into the profession, as well as their retention (OECD, 2023[105]). Diverse teachers can face barriers at each stage of their careers (Heinz and Keane, 2018[106]):

Prior to entry into ITE (i.e. factors influencing perceptions of teaching as an attractive and viable career choice);
At the point of entry into ITE (i.e. having the necessary qualifications and successfully applying to enter ITE);
During their progression through ITE (i.e. succeeding in ITE and overcoming potential impediments to their performance or graduation);
At the point of entry into schools (i.e. entering the teaching workforce and obtaining a position in schools); and
During the first years in school and beyond (i.e. completing the induction process, succeeding as NQTs and progressing beyond).

A range of promising measures to increase diversity in the teaching pipeline have been proposed and initiated over the years, including those included in the “National Access Plan 2022-2028” (Higher Education Authority, 2022[96]) and, going back as far as 2005, proposals by the Moving Beyond Educational Disadvantage Committee (Educational Disadvantage Committee, 2005[107]). Further analyses of the barriers to diversity in the teaching profession should inform an evaluation of on‑going initiatives and, if needed, the addition of further measures. These could include support networks for prospective teacher candidates, considering the relaxation of certain entry requirements that may discourage diversity among applicants (e.g. Irish language requirements in primary education), or organising access programmes for learners from disadvantaged settings (OECD, 2023[105]). Several OECD countries have also successfully conducted outreach activities to attract diverse candidates that are underrepresented in the teaching workforce to ITE programmes (Box 4.3).

Box 4.3. Outreach activities to attract diverse candidates into ITE programmes in Germany

Workshops for students with an immigrant background interested in a teaching career in Germany

Between 2008 and 2014, the German Schülercampus – mehr Migranten werden Lehrer (Campus for Pupils – More Migrants Are Becoming Teachers) project provided targeted career counselling to upper secondary students with an immigrant background who were interested in pursuing a teaching career. The project was implemented by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees in partnership with the ZEIT Foundation and local universities. The first Schülercampus took place in Hamburg and was expanded to ten federal states across Germany in the following years. The project offers four-day intensive residential workshops for students from the age of 16 that allow them to explore the opportunities of becoming a teacher. The workshops involve: individual and group activities, seminars, Q&A sessions; practical work experience in a school to enable participants to explore different aspects of the profession such as access qualifications, studying, salary and progression and personal qualities required for teaching; and, opportunities to engage with teaching students who have a migration background (Brussino, 2021[52]; Donlevy, Meierkord and Rajania, 2016[108]). Since 2014/15, universities across Germany are organising orientation days as part of the follow-up project Vielfalt im Klassenzimmer = Vielfalt im Lehrerzimmer (Diversity in the Classroom = Diversity in the Staffroom).

Source: Adapted from OECD (2023[105]), Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en; Donlevy, Meierkord and Rajania (2016[108]), Study on the diversity within the teaching profession with particular focus on migrant and/or minority background, https://doi.org/10.2766/873440.

In addition, the DoE should 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 or Indigenous backgrounds have shown some promise in improving their retention (OECD, 2023[105]). Box 4.4 presents two international examples of such programmes.

Box 4.4. Mentoring programmes to improve the retention of diverse teachers

The Te Whatu Kura mentoring initiative in New Zealand

In New Zealand, the Te Whatu Kura mentoring initiative was introduced by the Ministry of Education in 2014 to support beginning teachers in indigenous Māori-medium settings to improve their retention. Prior to the programme’s introduction, approximately 70% of beginning teachers in these schools had been estimated to leave the workforce during the first three years of their careers, compared to 30% in English-medium settings. The Te Whatu Kura programme focused on training teacher mentors (who in turn support beginning teachers) in developing school induction programmes, through regional cluster meetings and workshops, a range of online supports, and in-school visits (Newbold, Trinick and Robertson, 2016[109]). An evaluation of the induction and mentoring programme found indicative evidence of its effectiveness with three-year attrition among participating teachers reduced to 20% (compared to the expected 70%) (Wehipeihana, Paipa and Smith, 2018[110]).

Peer support networks for beginning teachers in Boston (United States)

Evaluations of mentoring and support programmes for Indigenous and ethnic minority teachers in the United States have also yielded positive results (OECD, 2023[105]). In Boston (United States), for example, a small peer support network created for non-white male teachers was deemed successful in providing beginning teachers with social and emotional support as well as opportunities to discuss and share effective teaching strategies. The model was subsequently adopted across the Boston Public Schools district as part of a larger effort to improve retention among non-white male teachers (Gist et al., 2021[111]).

Source: OECD (2023[105]), Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en.

The OECD review team formed the impression that DEIS schools (especially in urban areas) face particular challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers, at least in part due to their reputation as very demanding places to work. In interviews, some stakeholders suggested that this perception may be reinforced by the fact that many teacher candidates were unaware of the additional supports available to them in DEIS schools (i.e. additional administrative support, smaller class sizes and HSCL Coordinators). It may, therefore, be worth communicating these factors more clearly at the point of application and encouraging teachers to consider taking up the challenge of working in disadvantaged schools.

Allow for greater flexibility in the staffing and allocation of key support roles

The shortage of teachers in schools should not be considered in isolation, but more broadly within the context of staffing and allocating different roles in and around schools. Policy changes related to the opening of special classes and their staffing, for example, have a significant impact on the allocation and demand for teachers. Likewise, the significant expansion of the HSCL Scheme has been exclusively staffed by teachers previously serving in the classroom. The role of HSCL Coordinators is a highly attractive opportunity for teachers to acquire new skills and deepen their perspective on the needs of disadvantaged students, which they can bring back to the classroom or apply in leadership positions after the end of their five-year term. Nevertheless, requiring aspiring HSCL Coordinators to be practicing teachers excludes a wide range of highly qualified candidates from the role as well as putting a limit on the scheme’s scalability in the context of teacher shortages.

The DoE and Tusla should, therefore, consider diversifying their approach to staffing HSCL roles and widening the criteria for these roles (e.g. considering experienced youth workers and other professionals who work to support families), rather than relying fully on teacher-led provision. Even though staff shortages also affect other sectors from which HSCL Coordinators could be recruited, greater staffing flexibility could expand the pool of potential candidates. While care should be taken not to dilute the existing HSCL provisions, this could provide a basis for expanding the programme to a wider range of vulnerable and disadvantaged students in non-DEIS or DEIS Rural schools.

In 2022 and 2023, the DoE made a first important step in this direction when it used dormant account funds to assign ten HSCL Coordinators to work with 14 non-DEIS post-primary schools, together with the allocation of four HSCL Coordinators to work with schools in the Supporting Traveller and Roma students pilot (Eurydice, 2023[112]). Pending the positive evaluation of both initiatives, this could constitute an important step to increase support for the most disadvantaged students that are not enrolled in DEIS schools. As discussed in Chapters 3 and 5, the allocation of additional HSCL Coordinators (potentially part-time or shared across multiple schools) should be aligned with reflections on a reform of DEIS Bands and greater differentiation in DEIS supports for schools with different levels of disadvantage.

A more diverse approach to recruitment should also be considered for guidance counsellors, as was recommended in a recent OECD Skills Strategy review (OECD, 2023[113]). Counsellors in Ireland are well‑trained with a postgraduate guidance counselling qualification at Level 8/9, but are mostly recruited from the teaching workforce. Considering a wider range of professionals for these roles, for example from the fields of youth work or family support work, could broaden the pool of candidates and help to alleviate staff shortages.

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

The learning needs of students in Ireland’s mainstream schools have evolved significantly over recent decades. Addressing these needs requires teachers to continue their professional development, to update and to improve their practice over the course of their careers. 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 the professional improvement cycle – not just at the school level but also at the individual level. To address this, Ireland should establish a system of regular teacher appraisal, coupled with expanded opportunities for informal feedback by peers. This approach will not only foster a culture of continuous improvement and reflective practice, but also guide teachers on their professional learning journeys. Recognising teachers’ individual involvement in CPL should not only be encouraged but also explicitly recognised by setting clear expectations and linking it to their regular appraisal process. Enhancing teachers’ engagement in CPL also requires identifying and addressing existing barriers to participation. This involves creating supportive structures – including effective approaches to substitution – that allow teachers to participate in CPL without compromising their classroom responsibilities. By combining these approaches, Ireland could significantly enhance the quality and effectiveness of teaching in DEIS schools and beyond.

Establish a system of regular teacher appraisal and expand opportunities for informal feedback

Providing teachers with regular formative feedback on their work can be a powerful means to encourage their continuing professional learning (Taylor and Tyler, 2012[114]). OECD evidence suggests that appraisal processes can strengthen teachers’ professionalism and performance, provided that it emphasises developmental evaluation and facilitates teachers’ career progression (OECD, 2020[23]). 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 (see Chapter 5). Considering these demands, providing teachers with regular feedback on their work is critical to adapting and improving their practices for greater equity and inclusion (OECD, 2023[105]). The absence of systematic staff appraisal and the limited use of classroom observations in Ireland thus severely limit opportunities for both teachers and principals, particularly in DEIS schools, to improve their practice and support the learning of the most disadvantaged students.

Introducing a system of formative appraisal could make an important contribution to capacity building in schools, and improve learner outcomes and motivation among school staff. To accomplish this, the results of the appraisal process should be explicitly linked to opportunities for professional development, for example, by informing teachers’ professional learning plans. While all teachers and school leaders would benefit from such developmental plans, those who are found to struggle to improve might require more frequent feedback or more rigorous oversight (OECD, 2019[60]).

In order for appraisal processes to have a meaningful impact on teaching practices and be more than a bureaucratic exercise, they need to be carefully designed to avoid tensions between their multiple, formative and summative, purposes and overcome potential resource, capacity, technical, political and cultural barriers (OECD, 2019[60]). Given the intense demands on school leaders’ time, a critical challenge will be to increase or redistribute resources and to shift the responsibilities of evaluation and management in order to permit those responsible for staff evaluations to engage in them effectively.

Teachers improve most when working in supportive environments alongside peers seeking to improve on similar dimensions (Johnson, Kraft and Papay, 2012[115]). To promote collective professional learning in schools, the results of individual teacher appraisals could be aggregated or fed into school self-evaluations to generate collective plans for professional development. Used in this way, evaluation-informed professional development can explicitly recognise the ecological context in which teachers and leaders’ learning takes place (OECD, 2019[60]). Effective teacher appraisal also invariably involves some observation of the teachers’ work, usually through direct lesson observation or portfolio review and feedback from other stakeholders in the school community (OECD, 2015[27]). The introduction of regular teacher appraisal should therefore be accompanied by efforts to strengthen the culture of peer-observation more widely, as a powerful way to foster informal collaborative learning in schools.

Although relatively few leadership teams in Ireland engage in lesson observations at the post-primary level, there are some informal professional learning practices in schools that can be further built on. For example, representatives of Oide confirmed that – while not yet widespread – some schools at the post-primary level were already experimenting with peer observation. Oide is well-positioned to take a lead in further expanding this culture of peer observation. For example, Oide’s professional learning leaders could proactively use their model lessons approach to showcase the value of lesson observation and promote the practice among teachers and school leaders.

Furthermore, 54.2% of principals in PISA 2022 reported that teachers had engaged in some form of peer‑review practices during the previous year (see Figure 4.6 above), which was only slightly below the OECD average of 59.1% (OECD, 2023[12]). These peer-review practices include teachers’ collaborative work on lesson plans and assessment instruments or lesson observations. All of these can be effective forms of informal professional learning and students’ performance in mathematics tended to be significantly higher in Irish schools where they took place, even after accounting for students’ socio-economic status (ibid.).8 Provided that teachers are given the opportunity, these practices should be built on to strengthen teachers’ engagement in forms of professional learning that are embedded in their everyday practice.

Recognise and raise expectations for teachers’ regular engagement in continuing professional learning

In order to further promote teachers’ engagement in CPL activities and to recognise those that already do, Ireland should raise expectations for teachers’ engagement in continuing professional learning. While both the “Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers” and the “Cosán Framework for Teachers’ Learning” (The Teaching Council, 2016[31]; The Teaching Council, 2016[30]) emphasise the importance of career-long professional development, there are few structural provisions and supports to encourage teachers’ participation in continuing learning beyond the school-wide professional development days. Encouraging collaborative forms of professional learning – focused on the needs of diverse learners – stands to benefit not only the quality of instruction, but can also help to avert feelings of professional isolation among diverse teachers and those working in Ireland’s most disadvantaged schools (Bristol and Shirrell, 2019[116]).

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 foster a school culture of continuing professional learning. Likewise, school leaders should be provided with guidance and support to ensure that teachers can integrate a sufficient amount of CPL into their regular work, for example, by specifying how many of teachers’ “Croke Park” hours can be expected to be spent on professional learning.

Address barriers to teachers’ engagement in CPL, including access to substitution

Raising expectations for teachers’ engagement in continuing professional learning should go hand in hand with efforts to address existing barriers that limit their participation. Stakeholder interviews conducted by the OECD review team as well as national surveys of teachers and principals indicate that easing schools’ access to substitution will be an important factor in enabling greater engagement in professional learning (be it with colleagues, in Communities of Practice, or with external providers). PISA data suggest that DEIS schools are particularly afflicted by teacher shortages, which makes an effective substitution process especially important for them.

ITE providers have already introduced greater flexibility for student teachers to provide substitute cover. In addition, in 2019/20, the DoE piloted a Substitute Teacher Supply Panel Scheme for primary schools and expanded it nationwide in 2020/21. Although difficulties persist, this initiative constitutes an important step in the right direction and should be further developed, based on feedback from the profession. Since the difficulty of obtaining substitute teachers is even more pronounced in post-primary schools (Department of Education, 2022[79]), the DoE should also explore the feasibility of setting up similar systems at the post-primary level.

Other OECD countries where engagement in professional learning is not structurally embedded in teachers’ working arrangements have faced similar challenges as Ireland, given the need to replace teachers engaging in CPL to enable their participation. The Flemish Community of Belgium has sought to address this challenge and ease the recruitment of substitute teachers by creating a pool of candidates for substitution (Box 4.5).

Box 4.5. Creation of substitute teacher pools in the Flemish Community of Belgium

Starting in 2018/19, the Flemish Community of Belgium’s Ministry of Education created lerarenplatform (teacher platforms) to create a stable supply of substitute teachers for primary education. The platforms’ goal was to support school boards in replacing absent teachers and to enable teachers’ participation in continuing professional learning activities during school hours, which had become increasingly challenging in the context of teacher shortages (OECD, 2021[117]). The platforms also sought to provide greater job stability for beginning teachers and facilitate experienced teachers’ replacement while they take on different assignments such as co-teaching, supervision or support (De Witte, De Cort and Gambi, 2023[118]).

Teachers are hired for the platforms on one-year contracts and receive a salary from the Ministry of Education for this period, which funded an initial 350 FTE teachers with a budget of EUR 7.5 million. In the 2023/24 school year, 1 621 primary school teachers served on the platforms (Flemish Department for Education and Training, 2024[119]). All substitute teachers are assigned to an anchor school, in their preferred geographic area, where they work when not substituting for teachers in other schools. For example, a part-time teacher may have a 30% position in a school belonging to the platform and dedicate another 20% of their time to substitute work through the platform.

In cases where no substitutions are needed, staff on the teacher platforms perform other pedagogical tasks such as co-teaching or supporting their peers. FTE teachers who are hired through the teacher platforms are expected to be deployed for 80% of their time. If less time was spent on substitution in a year, fewer FTE teachers would be funded in the next year. If more time was spent on substitution, resources for the following year would increase. The platforms’ implementation has been monitored in co‑operation with the labour unions and social partners. A similar pilot, at a smaller scale, had been set up at the secondary education level but it was not extended beyond 2020 (Eurydice, 2023[120]).

Source: Adapted from OECD (2019[60]), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en; and Flemish Department for Education and Training (2018) Circular Bao/2018/01: Lerarenplatform in het basisonderwijs [Circular Bao/2018/01: Teaching Platform in Primary Education], https://data-onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/edulex/document.aspx?docid=15150#7 (accessed on 28 February 2024).

Ireland’s increased emphasis on Communities of Practice is laudable and particularly important for DEIS schools with diverse student and teacher populations, since it can help to decrease the isolation of diverse teaching staff and improve their retention along with having a positive impact on teaching practices (Bristol and Shirrell, 2019[116]). Nevertheless, encouraging teachers’ sustained engagement in professional learning communities requires not only access to substitutes, but also sufficient resources and time in teachers’ schedules. The School Excellence Fund DEIS initiative, for example, which ran from 2017 to 2021, provided clusters of schools with funding to implement context-specific, innovative programmes aimed at improving learning outcomes. Their outcomes have been evaluated by the Inspectorate (Education and Training Inspectorate, 2019[121]). The DoE should continue exploring such models, including to support DEIS teachers’ engagement in more continuing professional learning. School systems like New Zealand have effectively deployed resources to give teachers time to engage in collaborative forms of professional learning (Box 4.6).

Box 4.6. Providing resources for teachers’ collaborative professional learning

Resourcing Communities of Learning (Kāhui Ako) in New Zealand

In New Zealand, education and training providers (schools, kura [schools that reflect Māori language, knowledge and culture in philosophy and practice], early learning services and further education providers) can seek permission from the education ministry to form a Community of Learning (Kāhui Ako). If approved, the community receives resources to allow time for teachers to work together on meeting the achievement challenges, drawing on each other’s skills, knowledge and experience. Communities of learning can also adjust the roles of staff and establish additional leadership and teacher roles (across the community and within school). As of January 2021, there were 220 Communities of Learning in operation throughout New Zealand, comprised of 1 868 schools, 1 551 early learning services, 11 tertiary providers and over 700 000 learners (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2024[122]).

Sources: OECD (2019[60]), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en; and New Zealand Ministry of Education (2024[122]), Communities of Learning | Kāhui Ako, https://www.education.govt.nz/communities-of-learning (accessed 15 June 2019).

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

Enhancing educational quality and equity with limited resources requires Ireland to focus its capacity‑building efforts where they are needed the most – both in terms of their recipients and in terms of their substantive focus. This requires a strategic reflection on the role of DEIS schools within a wider ecosystem of support and the types of intervention that are best provided through a multi-disciplinary approach. Further intensive support should be targeted to students and schools with the highest levels of needs. To ensure that resources in schools are used effectively, Ireland should further strengthen schools’ capacity for evidence-based improvement by investing in structures that can facilitate their collection and effective use of data. 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.

Take a strategic approach to capacity building that reflects DEIS schools’ role within a wider ecosystem of support

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 in Ireland’s schools – particularly those serving the most disadvantaged students. Yet, the OECD review team’s interviews with stakeholders have highlighted that schools’ capacity to meet learners’ needs critically depends on a wider ecosystem of support. Schools are in a privileged position to serve as a hub for different actors to provide children with wrap‑around support services or to direct those in need to appropriate sources of external support. 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.

While schools will undoubtedly benefit from further capacity in key areas of student support (see below), some of the challenges identified in schools (e.g. concerning their ability to provide therapeutic interventions) cannot be addressed by teachers and further CPL alone but require additional external capacity. 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. As discussed in Chapter 2, alleviating the burden placed on schools and providing effective support to students will require an increased emphasis on interdisciplinary, joint-up work across a range of agencies. Improved inter-agency collaboration and communication are needed to systematically keep track of students’ needs and the support they receive across a range of providers, identify additional needs and intervene as or before they arise. Likewise, strengthening schools’ capacity for data analysis and evidence-informed improvement should not only involve training for school staff but also support provided at a higher level to multiple schools (see Chapter 6 for a detailed discussion).

The OECD review team has encountered several promising initiatives seeking to address capacity shortages through multi-disciplinary collaboration and partnerships that extend beyond schools. The North East Inner City Multi-Disciplinary Team (NEIC MDT) in Dublin is one such example (Department of Education and NEPS, 2022[123]). Established in 2020, the NEIC MDT is based on an interagency collaboration between the Health Service Executive (HSE) and the DoE. The NEIC MDT comprises NEPS educational psychologists and HSE primary care, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and psychologists. The multidisciplinary team supports ten primary schools in Dublin’s city centre with quick access to wraparound therapeutic support, including advice and training for school staff and parents, preventative work, early intervention, assessment and on-site therapeutic interventions.

Another promising example of targeted external support for schools with the highest levels of need is the City Connects programme, which organises student support and leverages existing school and community-based resources to improve students’ academic and social-emotional outcomes. City Connects is run jointly by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, the DoE, Boston College, TESS, Mary Immaculate College and funded by the NEIC Initiative (NEIC, 2020[124]). Starting in 2020/21, the programme has been piloted in ten primary schools in Dublin’s NEIC area to provide all students in participating schools with a holistic assessment of their academic, socio-emotional, health and family needs, based on which they are provided with a tailored set of supports and enrichment opportunities (NEIC, 2023[125]).

The resource-intensity of measures like City Connects or NEIC MDT precludes their universal rollout, Ireland should consider which of them may be suited to complement the capacity of schools serving severely disadvantaged students beyond the NEIC area – subject to a rigorous evaluation of their effectiveness. A more flexible approach to targeting supports to students and schools – identified based on administrative data in collaboration with the Central Statistical Office, as discussed in Chapter 6 – could allow these additional supports to be targeted at a sub-group of the most disadvantaged DEIS schools, but also non-DEIS schools enrolling a smaller number of severely disadvantaged students.9

While many of the programmes described above require substantial resources, there is also some scope to strengthen schools’ capacity for therapeutic support at a more limited additional cost by strengthening their position within the wider ecosystem of support. As described in Box 4.7, for example, schools in Limerick have collaborated with higher education institutions to provide professional placements to university students with a focus on therapy, benefiting both institutions. Transition Year Programme (see Chapter 5), which typically involves high-quality work placements in the community for participating students, is another comparatively low-cost initiative that enables schools to let their students benefit from opportunities and the capacity of actors around them. Initiatives such as these should be recorded and examined for their potential to be implemented at a larger scale.

Box 4.7. Collaborations with HEIs to provide therapeutic professional placements in primary schools

The Health Alliances for Practice-Based Professional Education and Engagement (HAPPEE) initiative in Ireland facilitates university students with a focus on therapy to complete their professional placements in primary schools. Starting with a pilot in 2021, primary schools in Limerick’s regeneration communities have partnered with the University of Limerick (UL) to facilitate students completing their therapeutic professional placements in schools (as opposed to clinical settings). The placements last eight to ten weeks and are professionally supervised by clinical supervisors of the St Gabriel's Foundation. They are open to students of physiotherapy, speech and language therapy, and occupational therapy. With funding from the Economic and Social Intervention Fund and support from UL, the St Gabriel's Foundation and Limerick City and County Council, HAPPEE now covers six schools. In 2021, 142 school students benefited from the universal, targeted or individual support interventions provided through the HAPPEE placements. In the 2023/24 school year, UL provided 21 student placements across its six partner schools (on average, two students for each discipline) and 542 school students benefited from the interventions.

Source: University of Limerick (2022[126]), Health Alliances for Practice-Based Professional Education and Engagement (HAPPEE), https://www.ul.ie/news/be-happee-ul-school-intervention-programme-improves-outcomes-for-children-in-regeneration (accessed on 30 May 2024); Information provided by University of Limerick and partner schools.

Target capacity-building efforts to support teachers and school leaders in areas of greatest need

Given the limited resources, Ireland should seek to target its capacity building efforts to support teachers and school leaders in areas of greatest need. Data generated through school inspections provide an invaluable source of information in this process and Oide should build on the close relationship that the previous four learning support services had established with the Inspectorate. A close relationship with the Inspectorate should continue to ensure that the professional learning offer is aligned with both central priorities and the challenges observed in schools. Close collaboration with Oide also helps the Inspectorate support schools in linking the implementation of their Action Plans to effective CPL – an area where the Inspectorate has identified scope for improvement in some DEIS schools (Department of Education, 2022[63]).

Some of the schools serving students with the highest levels of need may also need further support to strengthen their administrative capacity. School leaders in Ireland face demands across a wide range of domains that require significant administrative, managerial and pedagogical competencies. To be able to fulfil their role and devote sufficient time to pedagogical leadership (including a stronger emphasis on teacher appraisal and leadership in school-based professional learning), school leaders in the most challenging schools would benefit from a more distributed approach to leadership and reinforced administrative support. This could involve lowering the enrolment threshold for secretary positions or administrative deputy principals in selected schools. The identification of eligible schools should follow transparent and rigorous criteria, which could be identified as part of a greater differentiation in the supports provided to DEIS schools with different levels of disadvantage (see Chapter 3).

Beyond strengthening their administrative capacity, school leadership teams in selected schools might benefit from additional peer-support and a more systematic exchange with other schools. Some of the school leaders interviewed by the OECD review team were involved in local support groups for principals and deputy principals (often meeting in local Education Support Centres). Yet, there was little structural support to foster exchange and professional peer-learning on the specific issues faced by the school leaders of DEIS schools. Particularly in rural areas, professional learning communities bringing together the leadership teams of DEIS schools around shared challenges could be an important step to combat a risk of professional isolation and ensure that effective practices spread through the system.

Several OECD countries have created structures for peer learning and collaboration with a focus on disadvantaged and struggling schools, which may provide inspiration for Ireland (Box 4.8). In Ireland, the former Centre for School Leadership, whose work is now subsumed under the remit of Oide, has trained a number of recently retired school leaders to provide “bespoke mentoring” support to principals who are facing difficulties in their schools (CSL, 2022[127]). Ireland could build on this experience and explore further ways to incentivise highly effective in-service school leaders to act as mentors for less experienced or struggling peers and provide them with informal support and advice on pedagogical leadership.

Providing such opportunities to in-service school leaders could also contribute to their continuing professional improvement and encourage them to update their skills and take on new challenges, even at advanced stages of their careers. Similar mentorship-based approaches should be explored to intensify the preparation of HSCL Coordinators. More systematic contact with experienced peers – in addition to the regular HSCL cluster meetings – could be an effective way to ensure that the growing number of HSCL Coordinators are well-supported as take on their new roles.

Box 4.8. Collaborative improvement and professional learning communities for school leaders

Professional learning community of school leaders in disadvantaged schools in Northern Ireland

In Northern Ireland (United Kingdom), head teachers from schools in West Belfast, one of the country’s most socio-economically disadvantaged communities, have established a professional learning community to improve student learning outcomes. School leaders work together to identify common issues and areas for improvement across all schools, establishing dedicated sub-groups to work on the specific points identified. School leaders can also visit schools where good practices have been identified and can participate in joint training. The increased collaboration among schools has been associated with improvements in student learning outcomes (OECD, 2023[105]).

Collaboration for School Improvement in Sweden

Sweden’s Samverkan för bästa skola (Collaboration for School Improvement) programme was established by the National Agency of Education to support schools with low student achievement scores and graduation rates in improving student learning outcomes. As part of the programme, school leaders and school boards work in partnership with the National Agency for Education and universities to develop school improvement plans and receive guidance and support from university researchers in the plans’ implementation (Glaés-Coutts and Nilsson, 2021[128]; Brussino, 2021[52]).

Source: Adapted from OECD (2023[105]), Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en.

References

[100] AITSL (2024), ATWD National Trends: Initial Teacher Education Pipeline (Feb 2024), https://www.aitsl.edu.au/research/australian-teacher-workforce-data/atwdreports/national-trends-ite-pipeline-feb2024# (accessed on 26 February 2024).

[99] AITSL (2023), ATWD National Trends: Teacher Workforce, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), Melbourne, https://www.aitsl.edu.au/research/australian-teacher-workforce-data/atwdreports/national-trends-teacher-workforce (accessed on 26 February 2024).

[98] AITSL (2018), Annual Report 2017-2018: The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), Melbourne, https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/general/annual-report-17-18_final.pdf?sfvrsn=6b9af23c_4 (accessed on 26 February 2024).

[72] ASTI (2023), ASTI Survey 2023 - Recruitment, Retention and Supply of Teachers and School Leaders -, Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland, Dublin, https://www.asti.ie/document-library/asti-survey-2023/ (accessed on 6 January 2024).

[87] Boeskens, L. and D. Nusche (2021), “Not enough hours in the day: Policies that shape teachers’ use of time”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 245, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/15990b42-en.

[67] Boeskens, L., D. Nusche and M. Yurita (2020), “Policies to support teachers’ continuing professional learning: A conceptual framework and mapping of OECD data”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 235, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/247b7c4d-en.

[116] Bristol, T. and M. Shirrell (2019), “Who is here to help me? The work-related social networks of staff of color in two mid-sized districts”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 56/3, pp. 868-898, https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218804806/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.3102_0002831218804806-FIG2.JPEG.

[52] Brussino, O. (2021), “Building capacity for inclusive teaching: Policies and practices to prepare all teachers for diversity and inclusion”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 256, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/57fe6a38-en.

[49] Chetty, R. et al. (2011), “How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Evidence from Project STAR”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 126/4, pp. 1593-1660, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr041.

[127] CSL (2022), Bespoke Mentoring for School Principals, Centre for School Leadership, https://www.cslireland.ie/34-mentoring-for-newly-appointed-principals.html (accessed on 16 April 2024).

[18] Darmody, M. and E. Smyth (2016), Entry to Programmes of Initial Teacher Education, The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin, http://www.esri.ie (accessed on 10 November 2023).

[19] Darmody, M. and E. Smyth (2016), “Profile of second-level students exempt from studying Irish”, ESRI Working Paper Series, No. 527, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, https://aei.pitt.edu/88318/1/WP527.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2024).

[118] De Witte, K., W. De Cort and L. Gambi (2023), Evidence-based Solutions to Teacher Shortages: NESET report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2766/475647.

[89] Dee, T. (2004), “Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 86/1, pp. 195-210, https://doi.org/10.1162/003465304323023750.

[11] Department of Education (2024), OECD Review of resourcing schools to address educational disadvantage: Country Background Report Ireland, Department of Education, https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/govieassets/296017/4d1ac422-5475-470e-b910-4c80a83c43bc.pdf.

[55] Department of Education (2023), Initial Teacher Education Policy Statement, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/926b4-ite-policy-statement/ (accessed on 7 December 2023).

[129] Department of Education (2023), Pupils from the Traveller Community 2016-20, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/258672/64703960-5409-4314-a829-5e6b6603018b.pdf#page=null (accessed on 26 January 2024).

[24] Department of Education (2023), Supports to DEIS schools, https://www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/4018ea-deis-delivering-equality-of-opportunity-in-schools/ (accessed on 22 December 2023).

[10] Department of Education (2023), Teacher Statistics, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c97fbd-teacher-statistics/ (accessed on 3 January 2024).

[45] Department of Education (2023), The Friends Programmes, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/41216/fc1f9f7ae6df4749924eea240b9f3b98.pdf#page=null (accessed on 26 April 2024).

[44] Department of Education (2023), The Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management (TCM) Programme, https://assets.gov.ie/41215/90a7cb8701ab475cada4a20860dbcd73.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2024).

[66] Department of Education (2022), A Guide to Inspection in Post-Primary Schools, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/25258/e2f3707cfb3448db8cb0752613d031bd.pdf#page=null (accessed on 4 December 2023).

[65] Department of Education (2022), A Guide to Inspection in Primary Schools and Special Schools, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/25257/0325129729314c5089d321c4cc197fb5.pdf#page=null (accessed on 4 December 2023).

[79] Department of Education (2022), Chief Inspector’s Report: September 2016 – December 2020, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/232560/fac408b3-689b-44cb-a8f1-3cb090018a05.pdf#page=null (accessed on 20 December 2023).

[46] Department of Education (2022), Circular Letter 0036/2022: Revision of Salaries and Annual Leave arrangements for School Secretaries employed in recognised primary and post primary schools, https://www.gov.ie/en/circular/ea4c0-revision-of-salaries-and-annual-leave-arrangements-for-school-secretaries-employed-in-recognised-primary-and-post-primary-schools (accessed on 5 January 2024).

[63] Department of Education (2022), Looking at DEIS Action Planning for Improvement in Primary and Post-Primary Schools, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/226977/cd9c8a0a-9374-4085-806e-f81be6a2081d.pdf#page=null (accessed on 10 November 2023).

[81] Department of Education (2022), School Self-evaluation: Next Steps (September 2022 – June 2026), https://www.gov.ie/en/circular/e0383-school-self-evaluation-next-steps-september-2022-june-2026/ (accessed on 15 April 2024).

[71] Department of Education (2020), Developing a Teacher Demand and Supply Model for Ireland 2020 - 2036: A Technical Report, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/462697-developing-a-teacher-demand-and-supply-model-for-ireland-2020-2036/ (accessed on 7 January 2024).

[26] Department of Education (2019), Circular 0044/2019 Recruitment/Promotion and Leadership For Registered Teachers In Recognised Primary Schools, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/24995/e169bbffb0f24310bedab23951edb945.pdf#page=null (accessed on 20 December 2023).

[80] Department of Education (2019), Circular 0059/2019 Primary Schools Supply Panel Pilot Scheme for the 2019/2020 School Year, https://www.gov.ie/en/circular/primary-schools-supply-panel-pilot-scheme-for-the-2019-2020-school-year/ (accessed on 30 May 2024).

[25] Department of Education and Skills (2018), Circular Letter 0003/2018 Leadership and Management in Post-Primary Schools, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/12523/37c04f862b6a43a888c50296547f4927.pdf#page=null (accessed on 4 January 2024).

[3] Department of Education and Skills (2017), DEIS Plan 2017: Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/24451/ba1553e873864a559266d344b4c78660.pdf#page=null (accessed on 20 June 2023).

[2] Department of Education and Skills (2017), Report on the Review of DEIS, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/230369/44ce7126-6486-4f78-9e37-d617390d922a.pdf#page=null (accessed on 20 June 2023).

[36] Department of Education and Skills (2014), Circular 0043/2014, https://www.tui.ie/_fileupload/cl0043_2014.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2024).

[35] Department of Education and Skills (2011), Circular Number 0008/2011, https://www.into.ie/app/uploads/2019/07/Circular_0008_11.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2024).

[123] Department of Education and NEPS (2022), North East Inner City (NEIC) Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) - 2nd Annual Report 2021-2022, https://www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/a2f95-north-east-inner-city-initiative-neic/ (accessed on 8 January 2024).

[59] Department of Justice and Equality (2017), National Traveller and Roma Inclusion Strategy 2017 - 2021, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/43310/d7d54fbff0f4418982856e7dddaf78c1.pdf#page=null (accessed on 20 November 2023).

[108] Donlevy, V., A. Meierkord and A. Rajania (2016), Study on the diversity within the teaching profession with particular focus on migrant and/or minority background. Final report to DG Education and Culture of the European Commission, European Commission, Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/library/study/2016/teacher-diversity_en.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2018).

[50] Dynarski, S., J. Hyman and D. Schanzenbach (2013), “Experimental evidence on the effect of childhood investments on postsecondary attainment and degree completion”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 32/4, pp. 692-717, https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21715.

[121] Education and Training Inspectorate (2019), Interim SEF DEIS Report to the Department of Education and Skills [not published].

[107] Educational Disadvantage Committee (2005), Moving Beyond Educational Disadvantage, Department of Education and Scienc, Dublin.

[91] Egalite, A. and B. Kisida (2017), “The Effects of Teacher Match on Students’ Academic Perceptions and Attitudes”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 40/1, pp. 59-81, https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717714056.

[88] Egalite, A., B. Kisida and M. Winters (2015), “Representation in the classroom: The effect of own-race teachers on student achievement”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 45, pp. 44-52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.01.007.

[28] ESCI (2023), Education Support Centres Ireland, https://www.esci.ie/about-us.html (accessed on 21 December 2023).

[8] European Commission (2023), Education and Training Monitor 2023 – Ireland, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2766/58965.

[120] Eurydice (2023), Flemish Community of Belgium: National reforms in school education, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/belgium-flemish-community/national-reforms-school-education (accessed on 28 February 2024).

[112] Eurydice (2023), Ireland: National reforms in school education, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/ireland/national-reforms-school-education (accessed on 8 January 2024).

[119] Flemish Department for Education and Training (2024), Lerarenplatform in het basisonderwijs [Teacher Platform in Primary Education], https://onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/nl/onderwijspersoneel/van-basis-tot-volwassenenonderwijs/info-voor-starters/een-job-vinden/lerarenplatform-basisonderwijs (accessed on 28 February 2024).

[92] Gershenson, S. et al. (2022), “The long-run impacts of same-race teachers”, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Vol. 14/4, pp. 300-342, https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20190573.

[16] Gilleece, L. and S. Nelis (2023), Ireland’s 2021 National Assessments of Mathematics and English Reading: Exploring the Home Backgrounds, Classrooms and Schools of Pupils in Urban DEIS Schools, Educational Research Centre, Dublin, https://www.erc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/NAMER-21-DEIS-Context-Report-Final-Online.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2024).

[33] Gilleece, L., J. Surdey and C. Rawdon (2023), An evaluation framework for teachers’ professional learning in Ireland, Educational Research Centre, Dublin, https://www.erc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/TPL-Evaluation-Framework-Report-Online-2023.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2024).

[111] Gist, C. et al. (2021), Effective mentoring practices for Teachers of Color and Indigenous Teachers, https://kappanonline.org/mentoring-bipoc-teachers-gist-bristol-flores-herrera-claeys/ (accessed on 26 February 2024).

[128] Glaés-Coutts, L. and H. Nilsson (2021), “Who owns the knowledge? Knowledge construction as part of the school improvement process”, Improving Schools, Vol. 24/1, pp. 62-75, https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480220929767.

[90] Goldhaber, D., R. Theobald and C. Tien (2015), “The Theoretical and Empirical Arguments for Diversifying the Teacher Workforce: A Review of the Evidence”, CEDR Policy Brief, No. 2015-9, Center for Education Data & Research, Seattle, Washington, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=e064c83b3b8aefbb0e9b7d5d90c09faf96987df3 (accessed on 4 January 2024).

[4] Government of Ireland (2024), Education Indicators for Ireland - March 2024, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/289186/f6c5f4cd-913e-40c2-9cc0-c48c6d566e14.pdf#page=null (accessed on 19 April 2024).

[6] Government of Ireland (2023), Education Indicators for Ireland 2022, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/246552/96fc2eb5-b7c9-4a17-afbc-de288a471b3f.pdf#page=null (accessed on 3 January 2024).

[130] Government of Ireland (2001), Teaching Council Act, 2001, https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/8/enacted/en/print#sec39 (accessed on 26 April 2024).

[77] Harford, J. and B. Fleming (2023), “Teacher supply in Ireland: Anatomy of a crisis”, Irish Educational Studies, https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2023.2222709.

[106] Heinz, M. and E. Keane (2018), “Socio-demographic composition of primary initial teacher education entrants in Ireland”, Irish Educational Studies, Vol. 37/4, pp. 523-543, https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2018.1521731.

[102] HEQCO (2024), Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, https://heqco.ca/ (accessed on 31 January 2024).

[73] Herrmann, M. and J. Rockoff (2012), “Worker absence and productivity: Evidence from teaching”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 30/4, pp. 749-782, https://doi.org/10.1086/666537.

[38] Hickey, G. et al. (2017), “Exploring the effects of a universal classroom management training programme on teacher and child behaviour: A group randomised controlled trial and cost analysis”, Journal of Early Childhood Research, Vol. 15/2, pp. 174-194, https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15579747/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_1476718X15579747-FIG1.JPEG.

[58] Hick, P. et al. (2020), Initial Teacher Education for Inclusion, National Council for Special Education (NCSE), Trim, https://ncse.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/04611_NCSE-Initial-Teacher-Education-RR27.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2023).

[96] Higher Education Authority (2022), National Access Plan: A Strategic Action Plan for Equity of Access, Participation and Success in Higher Education 2022–2028, https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2022/09/National-Access-Plan-2022-2028-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2023).

[95] Higher Education Authority (2015), National Plan for Equity of Access to Higher Education 2015-2019, https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/06/National-Plan-for-Equity-of-Access-to-Higher-Education-2015-2019.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2024).

[74] Houses of the Oireachtas (2023), School Staff: Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 17 October 2023, https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2023-10-17/36/ (accessed on 14 June 2024).

[83] Inspectorate (2022), Looking at Our School 2022: A Quality Framework for Post-Primary Schools, Department of Education, Dublin, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/25261/c97d1cc531f249c9a050a9b3b4a0f62b.pdf#page=null (accessed on 15 April 2024).

[82] Inspectorate (2022), Looking at Our School 2022: A Quality Framework for Primary Schools and Special Schools, Department of Education, Dublin, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/25260/4a47d32bf7194c9987ed42cd898e612d.pdf#page=null (accessed on 15 April 2024).

[115] Johnson, S., M. Kraft and J. Papay (2012), “How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 114/10, pp. 1-39, https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/johnson_kraft_papay_teacher_working_conditions_final.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2019).

[94] Keane, E. and M. Heinz (2015), “Diversity in initial teacher education in Ireland: The socio-demographic backgrounds of postgraduate post-primary entrants in 2013 and 2014”, Irish Educational Studies, Vol. 34/3, pp. 281-301, https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2015.1067637.

[93] Keane, E., M. Heinz and R. Mc Daid (2022), “Diversity in the teaching profession in Ireland: Tracing research and policy development”, in Keane, E., M. Heinz and R. Mc Daid (eds.), Diversifying the Teaching Profession: Dimensions, Dilemmas and Directions for the Future, Taylor and Francis, London, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003188735-4.

[41] Kennedy, Y. et al. (2021), “Exploring the impact of Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management training on teacher psychological outcomes”, Educational Psychology in Practice, Vol. 37/2, pp. 150-168, https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2021.1882944.

[48] Krueger, A. (2003), “Economic considerations and class size”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 113/485, pp. 34-63, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00098.

[40] Leckey, Y. et al. (2016), “A mixed-methods evaluation of the longer-term implementation and utility of a teacher classroom management training programme in Irish primary schools”, Irish Educational Studies, Vol. 35/1, pp. 35-55, https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2016.1147974.

[39] McGilloway, S. et al. (2010), Positive classrooms, Positive children: A Randomised Controlled Trial to investigate the effectiveness of the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management programme in an Irish context (short-term outcomes), Archways, Dublin.

[97] MIE (2024), Migrant Teacher Project (MTP), Marino Institute of Education, http://www.mie.ie (accessed on 29 May 2024).

[56] Morgan, M. and D. Craith (2015), Workload, Stress and Resilience of Primary Teachers: Report of a Survey of INTO members, Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO), Dublin, https://www.into.ie/app/uploads/2019/07/WorkloadReport_Sept15.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2024).

[70] Mostafa, T. and J. Pál (2018), “Science teachers’ satisfaction: Evidence from the PISA 2015 teacher survey”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 168, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1ecdb4e3-en.

[125] NEIC (2023), 2023 Progress Report, North East Inner City Initiative, Dublin, https://www.neic.ie/assets/f/124946/x/8be88ee853/neic-annual-progress-report-2023.pdf (accessed on 26 January 2024).

[124] NEIC (2020), City Connects - North East Inner City of Dublin, https://www.neic.ie/news/city-connects (accessed on 25 January 2024).

[64] Nelis, S., L. Gilleece and T. Dinh (2024), Principals’ initial perspectives of action planning in new DEIS primary and post-primary schools, Educational Research Centre, Dublin.

[15] Nelis, S. et al. (2021), Beyond Achievement: Home, School and Wellbeing Findings from PISA 2018 for Students in DEIS and non-DEIS Schools, Educational Research Centre, Dublin, https://www.erc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FINAL_Web_version_ERC-PISA-DEIS-Report-II_May-2021.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2023).

[86] NEPS (2023), Introducing a trauma-informed approach: The Stress Factor - Getting the Balance Right: A NEPS e-Learning course for schools, https://ecdrumcondra.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Stress-factor-Flyer-EV-Final.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2024).

[122] New Zealand Ministry of Education (2024), Communities of Learning | Kāhui Ako, https://www.education.govt.nz/communities-of-learning/ (accessed on 28 February 2024).

[109] Newbold, E., T. Trinick and J. Robertson (2016), “The critical role of the educative mentor as a leader to support the retention of beginning teachers in Māori-medium schools”, Journal of Educational Leadership Policy and Practice, Vol. 31/1, pp. 20-32, https://nzeals.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/3-Newbold-Trinnick-Robertson.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2024).

[37] Nye, E., G. Melendez‐Torres and F. Gardner (2019), “Mixed methods systematic review on effectiveness and experiences of the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management programme”, Review of Education, Vol. 7/3, pp. 631-669, https://doi.org/10.1002/REV3.3145.

[13] OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d7f76adc-en.

[7] OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.

[105] OECD (2023), Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en.

[113] OECD (2023), OECD Skills Strategy Ireland: Assessment and Recommendations, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d7b8b40b-en.

[61] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Database [authors’ analysis], https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/ (accessed on 29 January 2024).

[14] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.

[12] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.

[17] OECD (2022), Education at a Glance 2022: Annex 3D. Sources, methodology and technical notes for Chapter D., https://www.oecd.org/education/EAG2022_X3-D.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2024).

[78] OECD (2022), Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en.

[104] OECD (2022), “Resourcing higher education in Ireland: Funding higher education institutions”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 51, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67dd76e0-en.

[103] OECD (2021), “Resourcing higher education in Denmark: Thematic policy brief”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 49, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c8217325-en.

[117] OECD (2021), “Teachers’ professional learning study: Diagnostic report for the Flemish Community of Belgium”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 31, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a6d6736-en.

[34] OECD (2020), Education in Ireland: An OECD Assessment of the Senior Cycle Review, Implementing Education Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/636bc6c1-en.

[23] OECD (2020), “Education Policy Outlook in Ireland”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 18, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/978e377b-en.

[51] OECD (2019), A Flying Start: Improving Initial Teacher Preparation Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cf74e549-en.

[62] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.

[9] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.

[60] OECD (2019), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en.

[47] OECD (2018), Responsive School Systems: Connecting Facilities, Sectors and Programmes for Student Success, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264306707-en.

[27] OECD (2015), Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en.

[101] Ontario College of Teachers (2023), Transition to Teaching 2022, Ontario College of Teachers, Toronto, https://www.oct.ca/-/media/PDF/transition%20to%20teaching/2022/T2T_2022_EN_PUBLISH.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2024).

[43] Rodgers, A. and S. Dunsmuir (2015), “A controlled evaluation of the ’FRIENDS for Life’ emotional resiliency programme on overall anxiety levels, anxiety subtype levels and school adjustment”, Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Vol. 20/1, pp. 13-19, https://doi.org/10.1111/CAMH.12030.

[69] Ronfeldt, M. et al. (2015), “Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 52/3, pp. 475-514, https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215585562.

[42] Ruttledge, R. et al. (2016), “A randomised controlled trial of the FRIENDS for Life emotional resilience programme delivered by teachers in Irish primary schools”, Educational and Child Psychology, Vol. 33/2, pp. 69-89, https://doi.org/10.53841/BPSECP.2016.33.2.69.

[75] Santiago, P. (2002), “Teacher Demand and Supply: Improving Teaching Quality and Addressing Teacher Shortages”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 1, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/232506301033.

[21] Smyth, E. et al. (2016), Review of the Droichead Teacher Induction Pilot Programme, The Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/BKMNEXT303%20%281%29.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2023).

[1] Smyth, E., S. McCoy and G. Kingston (2015), Learning from the Evaluation of DEIS, The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin, http://www.esri.ie (accessed on 10 November 2023).

[114] Taylor, E. and J. Tyler (2012), “The Effect of Evaluation on Teacher Performance”, American Economic Review, Vol. 2012/7, pp. 3628-3651, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3628.

[85] TESS (2021), HSCL Coordinators - Autumn 2021 Induction Booklet, Tusla Education Support Service, Dublin, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/39198/8758229fd4aa48bd8421f6186459976b.pdf#page=1 (accessed on 5 January 2024).

[5] The Teaching Council (2023), Annual Report 2022/2023, https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/assets/uploads/2023/08/Teaching-Council-Annual-Report-2022-to-23-Final.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2024).

[53] The Teaching Council (2020), Céim: Standards for Initial Teacher Education, https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/assets/uploads/2023/08/ceim-standards-for-initial-teacher-education.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2023).

[22] The Teaching Council (2017), Droichead: The Integrated Professional Induction Framework, https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/assets/uploads/2023/08/droichead-the-integrated-professional-induction-policy.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2023).

[30] The Teaching Council (2016), Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers (Updated 2nd Edition 2016), https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/assets/uploads/2023/09/code-of-professional-conduct-for-teachers1.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2024).

[31] The Teaching Council (2016), Cosán: Framework for Teachers’ Learning, The Teaching Council, Kildare, https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/assets/uploads/2023/08/cosan-framework-for-teachers-learning.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2023).

[76] The Teaching Council (2015), Striking the Balance Teacher Supply in Ireland: Technical Working Group Report, https://assets.gov.ie/24682/d0040b68e60642078a17b8b422a5536e.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2024).

[57] The Teaching Council (2011), Initial Teacher Education: Criteria and Guidelines for Programme Providers.

[20] The Teaching Council (n.d.), Initial Teacher Education (Céim), https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/professional-learning/initial-teacher-education/ (accessed on 14 June 2024).

[32] The Teaching Council and Department of Education (2016), Action Plan to Support the Growth Phase of Cosán: the National Framework for Teachers’ Learning, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/214940/3a830db4-1f83-4902-a5f6-51265d2d5f80.pdf#page=null (accessed on 28 November 2023).

[68] Timperley, H. et al. (2007), Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration, New Zealand Ministry of Education, Wellington, http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/goto/BES (accessed on 26 March 2019).

[29] TPN (2023), Teacher Professional Networks, http://www.tpnetworks.ie/index.html (accessed on 22 December 2023).

[126] University of Limerick (2022), Health Alliances for Pratice-Based Professional Education and Engagement (HAPPEE), https://www.ul.ie/engage/node/7651 (accessed on 7 January 2024).

[110] Wehipeihana, N., K. Paipa and R. Smith (2018), Evaluation of the Retention Pilot Programmes for Māori Medium Beginning Teachers, https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/195369/Maori-Medium-Evaluation-of-the-MM-Retention-Pilot-Programmes-March-19d.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2024).

[84] Weir, S. et al. (2018), Partnership in DEIS Schools: A Survey of Home-School-Community Liaison Coordinators in Primary and Post-primary Schools in Ireland, Educational Research Centre, Dublin, https://www.erc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/HSCL-report-2018.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2023).

[54] Wenner, J. and T. Campbell (2017), “The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 87/1, pp. 134-171, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316653478.

Notes

← 1. In Ireland, the term “school leader(s)” is typically used to refer to any staff with formal leadership roles in schools, including teachers with posts of responsibility (i.e. Principals, Deputy Principals and Assistant Principals I & II). In this document, the term is used to refer to principals, unless stated otherwise.

← 2. Section 24 of the Education Act 1998, as amended by the Education (Amendment) Act 2012.

← 3. For a brief period from 1978 to 1982, secretaries in larger schools were employed as public servants on permanent full-time contracts by the Department of Education. Since 1985, they have been employed directly by schools, leading to a dual labour market with different pay and contract conditions.

← 4. This analysis is restricted to schools with the modal ISCED level for 15-year-old students, i.e. ISCED 3 (upper-secondary education) in Ireland. Student-teacher ratios need to be interpreted with caution, insofar as the ratio may not reflect teacher absenteeism (OECD, 2023[12]). The PISA international definition of disadvantaged schools (the bottom quarter based on the school's students’ average PISA index of economic, social and cultural status [ESCS]) is not identical to the DEIS status in Ireland.

← 5. The Professional Development Service for Teachers (PDST) has since been integrated into Oide.

← 6. 40 DEIS Urban Band 1 primary schools and 38 DEIS Post-primary schools.

← 7. In exceptional circumstances, should a Disciplinary Committee deem a teacher unfit to teach, their continued registration can be made conditional on the attendance of professional development courses (Government of Ireland, 2001[130]).

← 8. As measured by the PISA index of students’ economic, social and cultural status (ESCS).

← 9. For example, 48% of Traveller students at the primary level attended non-DEIS schools in the school year 2020/21. Although this proportion has been reduced to an estimated 26% in the 2022/23 school year due to the expansion of the DEIS programme, a significant proportion of Traveller students would remain excluded from services exclusively provided through DEIS schools. At the post-primary level, an estimated 45% of Traveller students attended non-DEIS schools in 2022/23 (down from 51% since 2020/21) (Department of Education, 2023[129]).

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & Events

News & Events

Featured Events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment