In a positive move, Deis introduced an independent, standardised system for determining which schools were entitled to participate, based on a deprivation index that included variables such as employment status, education levels, single parenthood, overcrowding and dependency rates.

At primary level, three grades or bands of disadvantage were established, reflecting a scale or spectrum of disadvantage across schools, but it has long been clear that this classification was insufficient to capture the complexity of issues faced by many schools. 

No reason was advanced as to why the situation should be different at post-primary level, yet all schools serving disadvantaged areas were grouped into a single category, as if they faced equivalent levels of deprivation.

Reviews of Deis in the interim period suggest that only marginal progress has been made in narrowing the gap between Deis and non-DEIS schools. Our own recent research strongly suggests that the resources provided under the Deis programme are grossly inadequate and that the programme is neither sufficiently resourced nor targeted.

Although the scheme has delivered some improvements, significant concerns have been voiced since its inception regarding its scope and funding, as well as its failure to reach all children experiencing persistent poverty, many of whom do not attend Deis schools. 

Educational disadvantage continues to be viewed largely as a school-based problem, with insufficient recognition at policy level of its deep-rooted connection to broader economic inequalities in Irish society. As wider research has consistently shown, there is only so much that schools can do to tackle the complex, wide-reaching and intractable issue of educational disadvantage.

Deis Plus

In recent years, a group of principals working in schools serving the most deprived areas of the country have begun to campaign for change. 

This reflected the fact that the needs of many of their students were not being met by the existing Deis programme. 

Their leadership and advocacy have prompted some fresh thinking in policy circles on the effectiveness of DEIS. In that context, the recent introduction of the Deis Plus initiative is very welcome. 

Essentially, it increases the grades of disadvantage recognised under the scheme, from three to four at primary level and from one to two at post-primary. 

This represents a recognition, albeit very belated, of the scheme’s inadequate focus since 2005, and is therefore a positive development. Whether it goes far enough, however, is extremely doubtful.

Take post-primary level, for example. Twenty-nine schools are to benefit from additional resources. There is no doubt these resources are badly needed and will prove beneficial. 

At the same time, the remaining two hundred schools are treated as though they are all in the same grade of disadvantage.

The Department of Education cannot, of course, be expected to devise a bespoke arrangement for each individual school.

However, the notion that all of these schools are operating in areas of equivalent deprivation is risible. Incremental change is not enough — a far more fundamental and focused response to the needs of Deis schools is urgently required.

Deis 10-year strategy

A 10-year strategy for Deis was also announced, setting out many worthy and valuable ideas and objectives. 

However, with statements such as "the Deis strategy to 2035 builds on the successes of the previous Deis programme", it appears to rest on the assumption that the programme to date has been a success. 

The reality is that no comprehensive evaluation covering the operation of Deis since its inception has been carried out. The available evidence suggests that progress to date, if any, has been extremely limited — hardly a credible basis for future policy. 

Developing a new strategy in the absence of such evaluation, whether independent or otherwise, is a flawed policy process. Against this backdrop, even a well-designed and well-intentioned strategy is unlikely to achieve really meaningful change.

The additional funding proposed is significant, but it is important to recall that the OECD recently described investment in Deis as "quite modest" (OECD, 2024). 

Some improvements will no doubt follow, particularly in Deis Plus schools, but the pattern of the past 20 years is likely to be repeated — slow progress but no significant move towards achieving an equitable education system. 

The State made a commitment to "equality of access to and participation in education" under the Education Act (1998, section 6. c). 

Twenty-eight years later, we are nowhere near realising that objective and, at the present rate of progress, it will never be achieved. A more radical reform of the Deis programme is urgently needed.

• Dr Brian Fleming and Professor Judith Harford lecture at the School of Education in UCD