The DEIS programme as a policy aimed at combating educational disadvantage: fit for purpose?

Abstract

Existing research in the area of educational disadvantage in the Irish context is located either within the historiography of policy in the area or in contemporary macro analysis of dominant trends. The existing canon of research tells us that prolonged periods of unemployment and poorer health outcomes are features of early school leavers, that the educational experience of young people are reflected in their future life trajectories, and that inter-generational transmission is common. While broader macro analysis is fundamental in informing policy, context-specific research is also critical in shaping the policy trajectory and policy implementation. This article provides for the first time in Irish post-primary education an in-depth examination of the experience of existing policy in six case study schools, as articulated through the voices of school leaders, teachers, parents and pupils. The focus here is on the adequacy or otherwise of the resources provided under the DEIS (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools) programme in light of the particular challenges those school communities face. Clear evidence emerges that not only are the resources inadequate but that mechanisms are in place in the state’s funding of post-primary schools to ensure the perpetuation of educational disadvantage.

Keywords:

• educational disadvantage
• DEIS
• post-primary schools
• Ireland
• context
• resources

Educational disadvantage

Since the term ‘educational disadvantage’ entered the policy discourse in Ireland in the early 1990s, there has been a proliferation of research, at a broad macro level, highlighting the inequities in the existing system, arguing for a more progressive vision as well as greater ambition regarding the educational imaginary of pupils attending schools in disadvantaged areas (Baker et al. 2004; Harford 2018). The existing canon of research tells us that prolonged periods of unemployment, poorer health outcomes and a higher propensity to be involved in crime are all features of early school leavers (Smyth and McCoy 2009), that the educational experience of young people is reflected in their future life trajectories (Smyth 2018), that inter-generational transmission is common and that investment in the early years of education is critical (Frawley 2014). This body of research includes an interrogation of the very use of the term educational disadvantage with some scholars arguing that the deficit language itself perpetuates inequality (Archer and Weir 2005; Spring 2007). Similarly, scholarship focusses on ways in which the education system more broadly propagates and legitimates inequality, reproducing intergenerational advantages for dominant social groups and exposing the close relationships between education, inequality and class (Bourdieu 1996), a phenomenon which has intensified in the Irish context since the 1970s (Byrne and McCoy 2017; Fleming 2016; Harford 2018, 2021; Harford and Fleming 2020). Implicit in this position is the view that the values and norms promoted within the system are those of the middle classes, shaped by the concerns and needs of middle-class families in their drive to maintain and reproduce their middle-class advantage (Ball 2003; Reay 2011), thus reproducing social inequalities by conferring a range of advantages on the already advantaged (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990). This becomes more obvious and pronounced at post-primary level, the focus of this research, as individual students’ social and cultural capitals, along with differences and stratifications in educational institutions, begin to interweave and intensify. There is significant evidence to suggest that this process of accelerated disadvantage has been heightened by the advent of ‘hegemonic neoliberal ideals’ in which schools have become classes spaces ‘characterised by market ideologies and structural inequality’ (Cahill and Hall 2014, 383). Scholars also make the point that there is only so much that schools can do to tackle the complex, wide-reaching and intractable issue of educational disadvantage and that a more sophisticated understanding of the interplay between educational disadvantage and susceptibility for involvement with child protection and welfare services is urgently required (Flynn 2020).

Framing contextualised policy

What happens in schools and classrooms does not occur in the abstract. Rather, there are layers of context which impact on the work of the individual teacher at the classroom level. These exist at global, national and school levels. At global level, the Global Education Reform Movement (Sahlberg 2011) exercises dominance in particular through the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Despite widespread criticism on various grounds (MacRuairc 2013; Zhao 2020), PISA exercises a very significant influence on policymaking in Ireland as indeed internationally (Auld, Rappleye, and Morris 2019; Biesta 2015; Grek 2009; Sellar and Lingard 2013). There is a tendency for authorities to ‘borrow’ policy and implement initiatives that have proved successful elsewhere without due consideration of national contextual factors (Auld and Morris 2014). Indeed, for historical reasons, Ireland may be more susceptible than most jurisdictions to this influence (Fleming 2016). Another factor which impacts the day-to-day running of schools is the growth in the New Public Management approach to accountability in education and other parts of the public service. A focus on ‘performativity’ ‘requires individual practitioners to organise themselves as a response to targets, indicators, and evaluators; to set aside personal beliefs and commitments and live an existence of calculation’ (Ball 2003, 215). What has thus emerged is a largely de-contextualised approach to policymaking in which factors such as poverty and disadvantage are side-lined (Thrupp 2018). Scholars have described this approach as policy as data (Lewis and Holloway 2019; Ozga 2009) and as a mode of governance (Ball 2015). Despite the extensive body of research on the damaging effects of NPM on schools and the teaching profession generally, (Braun and Maguire 2020; Groundwater-Smith and Sachs 2002; Skerritt 2020; Sugrue 2018), this is the accountability agenda adopted by the Irish inspectorate under the guise of school self-evaluation, which it manifestly is not (Brady 2016).

A feature of the early studies of effective schools is that they focused on those seen to be effective, identified the relevant characteristics and then sought to transfer them to those in need of improvement (Hopkins 2001). It seems that the reason scholars were relatively slow to consider the ‘underachieving’ school was the complexity of the factors at play (Harris and Chapman 2004), although there were exceptions (e.g. Maden 2001; Mortimore and Whitty 1997). Gradually it became apparent that the issue of school effectiveness was more complex than previously envisaged:

We don’t really know how much more difficult it is for schools serving disadvantaged communities to improve because much of the improvement research has ignored this dimension – that it is much more difficult, however, seems unquestionable. (Grey 2001, 33)

The need to pay more attention to contextual considerations became obvious, particularly about schools facing challenging circumstances (Harris and Chapman 2004). Empirical research in the UK traced daily life in four schools serving disadvantaged catchments over a year (Lupton 2005), in which several patterns were identified. These included: the wide ability range of pupils, with many exhibiting very low prior attainment levels; widespread evidence of poverty, which included inappropriate diet, lack of equipment and materials, and little sign of engagement in family enrichment activities; poor attendance levels; and the tendency for pupil-teacher contact time to be diverted into counselling students and dealing with behavioural issues. Commenting on life in the four schools, Lupton (2005, 595) identified ‘a charged emotional atmosphere’ and a sense of ‘unpredictability’ owing to the high number of students who were ‘anxious, traumatised, jealous, angry or vulnerable’. Similar findings emerged from research by Thrupp (1998) in New Zealand. Drawing on a comparative ethnography of four New Zealand secondary schools, Thrupp found that school mix thwarted the academic effectiveness of schools in low socioeconomic settings and boosted effectiveness in middle-class settings. Commenting on the challenges faced in one of the four schools located in an area of severe disadvantage, Thrupp noted that ‘guidance and disciplinary matters, often with a care and protection dimension, were the most pressing problem facing staff and management’ (1998, 208). He further observed that while staff had developed quite detailed policies on issues such as truancy and homework, putting them into practice was ‘time-consuming, unrewarding and risked confrontation’ (1998, 202). In such circumstances, a staff-student ‘game’ pattern of ‘don’t hassle me and I won’t hassle you’ developed (1998, 202). Both studies illustrate that schools in disadvantaged settings face additional pressures under two headings. First, there are the additional challenges faced by the classroom teacher, both in terms of pedagogy and emotional resilience (Lupton and Hempel-Jorgensen 2012; Devine and McGillicuddy 2016). Day and Hong (2016, 123) observe:

Extreme emotional, learning and behavioural challenges posed by students, combined with external demands for academic accountability, are likely to cause a demand for greater and more enduring general and everyday capacities for emotional resilience in teachers who work in schools that serve disadvantaged, vulnerable communities.

The problem is such circumstances is that ‘faced with these extra demands and internalising them as their own, teachers tend to fall back on modes of pedagogy with which they can, in various senses, succeed’ (Lupton and Hempel-Jorgensen 2012, 611).

The second area where additional challenges are faced falls under the heading of management and leadership, with particular reference to the principal’s role. As with the teacher in the classroom, context is important in considering this issue. Research on leadership in organisations generally has tended to overlook the significance of context until relatively recently, but this has, in the last two decades begun to change (Rousseau and Fried 2001; Johns 2006). Osborn, Hunt, and Jauch (2002, 798) argue that ‘leadership is embedded in context … One cannot separate the leader(s) from the context any more than one can separate flavour from food’. Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2020, 10) similarly observe:

A school leader’s main question should always be: Under these conditions, what should I do? Indeed, there is a credible case to be made that the role of research is to identify forms of leadership that will be helpful across many different contexts and that the prime role of school leaders is to figure out how best to use that information as they craft their responses to their own unique contexts.

This is a central and serious task for any school principal. Whilst it is recognised that context is important in the exercise of the leadership function, empirical research on the topic is scarce. We still do not know enough about the impact of context, or indeed have an exhaustive list of the factors involved and how they might interact with each other in any particular setting (Braun et al. 2011). It is clear, however, that contexts are ‘volatile, latent, ambiguous and therefore elusive’ (Clarke and O’Donoghue 2017, 176) and therein lies the challenge.

The delivering equality of opportunity in schools (DEIS) programme

Educational disadvantage is defined in the Education Act of 1998 as ‘the impediments to education arising from social or economic disadvantage which prevent students from deriving appropriate benefit from education in schools’. As Cahill (2015, 313) notes, the use of language such as ‘impediment’, ‘disadvantage’ and ‘prevent’ has a disempowering and objectifying effect, contributing to the construction of deficited ‘cultural models’ (Gee 2011, 174) in which ‘the disadvantaged’ become a recognisable entity that is different, othered, objectified and often vilified.’

The policy response of the Irish government has been to adopt a policy of positive discrimination, whereby additional resources are allocated to schools that cater for students, or really for high numbers of students, from low SES backgrounds (Weir 2016). This response is crystallised in the DEIS programme, launched in 2005 by then Minister for Education, Mary Hanafin. The DEIS programme builds on the work of the Education Disadvantage Committee (EDC) which had been set up in 2002 as an expert group functioning on an independent statutory basis, under the leadership of Áine Hyland (2005). Whilst the EDC had some influence on the contents of the DEIS plan, it seems to have been fairly limited. The work of the EDC is beyond the scope of this article; suffice it to say that its various reports reflected a broad holistic approach to the issues raised by educational disadvantage. Furthermore, its independent status allowed it to express a more open critique of current arrangements. In particular, its approach was based on the need for a whole of government approach to the problems of social exclusion involving action by a wide range of departments and agencies. Inevitably, the DEIS plan is more narrowly focused on the role schools and the DES can fulfill. Indeed, some scholars have argued that DEIS was set up as a means of taking back control of the educational disadvantage agenda from the independent statutory committee, which was taking a more radical and comprehensive approach to the issue (Fleming 2016, 347–353). The original EDC was never replaced but it is interesting that a group of our most distinguished educationalists recently made the case for the provision of an EDC to be re-introduced (Coolahan et al. 2017) and the idea seems to be gaining some traction in political circles with one of the major parties espousing the idea.

DEIS introduced an independent standardised system for determining which schools were entitled to participate based on a deprivation index that includes variables such as employment status, education levels, single parenthood, overcrowding and dependency rates. Extra funding was to be made available to designated secondary schools, including an additional grant under the School Books Scheme, resources to fund a Whole School Literacy and Numeracy Strategy as well as inclusion in the Home School Community Liaison Scheme and the School Completion Programme. As an essential part of the programme, school planning and target-setting measures were to be provided. Curricular initiatives, such as the Junior Certificate Schools Programme (JCSP) and the Leaving Certificate Applied were to be made available to all schools serving disadvantaged areas. The various initiatives that had previously been made available to such schools were to be integrated with a school-support programme (SSP), and outside agencies such as the NEWB were seen as important participants in ensuring progress. Progress on the implementation of plans was to be reviewed on an annual basis. It is noticeable, however, that no effort was made to analyse the educational needs of particular areas, their extent, and the resources needed to overcome them (Fleming 2020).

The first evaluation of DEIS at post-primary level was carried out by the Education Research Centre and published in 2014 (Weir et al. 2014). Questionnaires were completed by schools in the scheme and principals were interviewed by a team of fieldworkers. This process was useful in that it supplied a picture of the uptake of the various elements of the programme across the sector, recorded a positive assessment of the scheme by principals and identified some challenges they faced. However, the self-reporting nature of the exercise limited its value. Not surprisingly, the average school principal, when asked if the additional resources afforded to his/her school proved beneficial, replied in the affirmative. On the other hand, the evaluation looked also at retention rates and performance at Junior Certificate examination level. Overall, there were improvements in DEIS schools under both headings though substantial gaps remained when compared with their non-DEIS peers. The following year McAvinue and Weir produced an updated report which included more data on achievement levels and retention, and which noted improvements in all schools over the period, with a more marked change in the DEIS category, although substantial gaps between the two categories remained (McAvinue and Weir 2015). A recent ERC study used data from PISA cycles, 2009–2018, to evaluate progress. The authors noted that ‘students in DEIS schools have consistently achieved significantly lower average achievement than students in non-DEIS schools … While the size of the gap has narrowed significantly in reading, it has not changed significantly in mathematics or science’ (Gilleece, Nelis, Fitzgerald and Cosgrove, 2020, xv).

In 2015, the ESRI issued a report entitled Learning from the Evaluation of DEIS (Smyth, McCoy, and Kingston 2015), which drew attention to the fact that there are significant variations in educational achievement and retention levels across DEIS schools, (hardly surprising), and suggested that undertaking research in case study schools could shed light on what factors are at play. Two over-riding issues emerged from this report regarding the objectives of the DEIS scheme and the resources provided to support it. First, the authors questioned what the objective of the DEIS programme was, highlighting the vagueness surrounding the launch of the DEIS scheme as well as the fact that data gaps made a comprehensive evaluation impossible. Second the report pointed out that little discussion had taken place around the level of funding needed by DEIS schools.

Although DEIS, 2005, was the subject of ongoing evaluation and regular monitoring, 12 years elapsed before it was revised. DEIS 2017, differed in two important respects from the original version. The process for identifying schools entitled to support under the programme was refined using information from the primary and post-primary databases, the geo-mapping capacity that had been developed in the interim within the DES, and additional information forthcoming from the 2011 census, together with the Pobal HP Deprivation Index. As a result, additional schools were invited to participate in DEIS. The other major change was the adoption of a target-setting approach to the process of policy evaluation. On the personnel side, there was only one change. DEIS schools, like others, are subject to the normal budgetary processes so the enhanced guidance allocation announced in DEIS 2017 was merely a partial replacement of the cutback under this heading in Budget 2012. Hence, in the case of schools already participating in the programme DEIS (2017), did not represent significant change but, of course, for schools newly admitted it was a very welcome development. Targets to be examined included quite specific ones in relation to literacy, numeracy, retention and progression to further education as well as more general improvements in parental engagement and community links. Unfortunately, however, some of the weaknesses in the 2005 version persisted. No attempt was made to address the main questions posed in the ESRI report, namely what the specific objective of the initiative was and whether or not it was being sufficiently resourced.

Resources

The state provides support to schools in the ‘free education’ scheme (i.e. excluding fee-paying schools) under two broad headings, financial, to cover running costs, and human resources. Of these the former is the minor element. The mechanism for allocating financial support is complex and varies depending on the sector to which the individual school belongs (Darmody and Smyth 2013). The process is very opaque, and the total lack of transparency means that accurate comparisons are impossible. Insofar as a judgment is possible, it seems clear that in the allocation of state financial resources, schools in the voluntary secondary sector lose out by comparison with others. The issue of financial resources is further complicated by the fact that schools have access to local fundraising but, of course, some localities are in a better position to support their local schools in this regard than others. An expert group on the issue of funding post-primary schools was set up by the minister for education in 1996 chaired by E. J. Blackstock. It proposed a formula-based approach to apply to individual schools, which was designed to be more transparent and equitable. Schools serving disadvantaged areas would have a separate formula-based system, which meant that relatively greater financial support could be provided to them in such a way as to reflect local needs (Blackstock 1999). The recommendations of the Steering Committee on the Funding of Second-Level Schools were never implemented.

The state’s main contribution to education is in the form of the personnel it provides to schools. In the case of teachers, the primary mechanism of allocation to Irish schools is the pupil-teacher ratio (PTR). This tends to be improved when the economy is performing well and in times of recession cutbacks are applied. Thirty years ago, at post-primary level, it was 20:1, at the start of this century the figure was 18:1 and it currently stands at 19:1. Whilst this will determine the major portion of the staffing complement, there are in addition a few ex-quota posts (e.g. principal, a guidance allocation). The National Council for Special Education oversees the provision of resources, both teaching and special needs assistants, in respect of identified special education needs. Prior to the introduction of DEIS, the Expert Group on the Allocation of Teachers to Second-level Schools looked at the operation of the PTR nationally (McGuinness 2001). It proposed a strategy based on providing significant extra resources to the twenty-five most deprived areas in order to tackle disadvantage in a variety of ways:

These may include the provision of smaller classes, additional group and one-to-one tutoring, better subject choice, increased emphasis on pastoral care, and reduced class contact time for teachers so as to engage in in-service training, planning instruction, in school planning and programme instruction and holding regular meetings with parents (McGuinness 2001, 80).

The recommendations in the McGuinness report were not implemented.

The study

Case study research, involving six DEIS post-primary schools, was undertaken in 2019 to ascertain the effectiveness of the DEIS programme (Fleming 2020). The central issue addressed in the study was the question of resources and whether or not school communities are adequately resourced under the DEIS programme to meet the challenges they face. In various official reports on the programme, this fundamental question has never been addressed to any serious extent.

The six case study schools were randomly selected and interviews were undertaken with 43 teachers and principals. These included classroom teachers (CT; n = 18), year heads (YH; n = 7), guidance counsellors (GC; n = 7), home-school community liaison officers (HSCLs; n = 5) and principals (P; n = 6). Focus group discussions were held with senior students (n = 29) and parents/guardians (n = 41). In addition, a group of 28 stakeholders, including academics, educationalists, psychologists and others working in support services, not connected to the 6 schools, were interviewed to gain their insights and experiences. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim before analysis. Participants were allocated pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality and the dialectical features of the interview data were preserved in line with best practice in reporting qualitative data (Rapley 2004; O’Donoghue 2018). Interview data was initially coded according to participant and school type. Following on from the classification of participants and schools, the analysis followed a grounded theory methodology (Strauss and Corbin 1994) enabling theory generation to be emergent, that is ‘emerge from, rather than exist before, the data’ (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2011, 598). This involved analysis of interview transcripts to generate substantive theory ‘grounded’ in the data provided by the participants and from this inductive analysis emergent themes informed the findings and analysis. A substantial amount of relevant Irish and international research was also consulted. Consideration was also given to the work of various expert groups set up by the DES in recent decades, and the recommendations for changes in policy that were proposed. All ethical protocols of the institution were adhered to at all times.

The six schools involved in the case studies varied quite significantly in several respects. One was quite small and another very large, with the remaining four medium-sized. Two were situated in country town settings with the remaining four located in urban areas. Four were co-educational and two were single-sex, one all girls and the other all boys. Between them, all the main sectors at post-primary level, voluntary secondary, education and training board and community schools, were included. Despite their differences, across all of the schools, there were several common features. A significant proportion of students in each school was suffering from the effects of poverty in various forms, including financial, nutritional, educational and cultural; on average, 22.4% of the pupils had been assessed as having additional educational needs and principals estimated about the same proportion had similar needs which had not been diagnosed; staff members at all levels expended considerable time and energy, both physical and emotional, responding to the care needs of students, many of whom were displaying signs of anxiety, anger and trauma. Each of the schools could be described as unpredictable in the sense that a serious problem could arise at any time and support services to deal with mental health and wellbeing issues were grossly inadequate. In these circumstances, the challenges facing those who worked in the schools were far greater than the norm. A weakness in official research on the DEIS programme is the failure to address in any significant way the question of the resources provided under the programme. This was the fundamental issue discussed with participants in this study. The central research question addressed the challenges faced by school communities in meeting the needs of their pupils and the adequacy of the resources provided to meet them.

Findings

Clear evidence emerged in the study to illustrate that DEIS schools are significantly different from one another. Factors such as the catchment area, the nature of the student body, enrolment patterns, the local education ‘market’, size, tradition, stage of development and school culture all contribute to that reality. The more significant divergence, of course, is between DEIS schools and those in the non-DEIS category. The challenges facing DEIS schools in meeting the needs of their students and local community, in which poverty in its various forms is usually quite substantial, are substantially different to those serving more middle-class areas.

It is trite to say that all schools are different but this is, in fact, the case. The nature of the catchment area, traditions, culture, ethos and the balance of student intake, all contribute to this reality. Of course, these factors vary from place to place and change over time. The existence of grades and levels of disadvantage across schools was overwhelmingly apparent in this study, not only through the lens of the six case study schools, but through interviewees’ comments on experiences teaching and leading in other settings. For example, one principal reflected on his experiences in four DEIS schools and was able to grade them into four distinct categories of disadvantage. The inevitable existence of a scale or spectrum of disadvantage was recognised by the DES when designing the primary level DEIS scheme, which operates at three levels. No reason has been advanced as to why the situation should be different at post-primary level and yet, over 15 years since the DEIS scheme was launched, this issue has not been addressed. While it would be unrealistic to expect the DES to implement a bespoke arrangement to respond to the individual needs of every school, a model which is more precise and targeted than the current arrangement is needed. The more fundamental difference, of course, is between DEIS and non-DEIS schools. The mere existence of the DEIS programme recognises that reality. The key challenges faced as articulated by participants in this study included resourcing of teaching and learning, of leadership and management and of well-being.

Resourcing: teaching and learning

Many of the teachers who were interviewed had previous experience in non-disadvantaged settings and were able to distinguish DEIS and non-DEIS classrooms:

It’s way more difficult to teach in a DEIS school … It’s a calling, it really is, it’s a vocation, you really have to have it in your heart that you want to be here every day and keep doing it because there’s loads of challenges. (CT, 6)

90% of our kids are lovely kids that are normal teenagers dealing with whatever social, family and personal issues that are going on. The 10% of our kids that are so extreme that they take up all the time and they cause such an effect in the classroom on the other kids that it does hold up their learning … this is the problem with the [lack of] diagnoses. If you have got a kid that’s un-diagnosed, he’s frustrated, he knows he’s not stupid, but he doesn’t want to look stupid in front of the class and he is asked to do something, he would rather tell the teacher to f-off than he would to admit he needs help. (GC, 4)

Previous studies have indicated that pupils in disadvantaged schools are far more likely to experience ‘much higher levels of negative feedback from their teachers than their middle-class peers’ (Smyth 2018, 131), with sanctions employed typically more punitive than those used in middle-class or socially mixed schools. Without exception, the interviewees in this study were careful to avoid the easy option of apportioning blame to pupils for classroom disruption. Rather they sought to understand the underlying causes:

I know there are easier schools to teach in … I do love the kids in this school, I really do. I know some of them have huge difficulties and they sometimes take it out on you but, at this stage, I’m able to separate the child from the behaviour … There are a lot of extreme situations here. (YH, 6)

In most cases, the behaviour was provoked by challenging home environments: ‘Parents with health issues, teenager filling the caring role, you wonder how they manage to come into school (HSCL, 2) and in the majority, children were parented by mothers solely: There are lots of split families … It’s difficult for a mother on her own, working and trying to rear kids. They are worn down by poverty and hardship’ (HSCL, 7). The disconnection between the norms and values of the school and those of the home was stark:

For some kids the achievement is arriving at school in the morning. I think that’s a huge problem, a big challenge in DEIS schools in particular, keeping kids motivated when they’re coming from homes where their education just isn’t a priority in a lot of cases for good reason, for very good reason. I just think it’s very difficult, you can motivate them and let them know what you expect but when they go home and there’s no one reinforcing that that or it’s not being supported at home that makes it very, very difficult for the kid. (CT, 14)

The impact of this disconnect on a school’s ability to provide a high-quality teaching and learning environment and on teachers’ capacities to remain engaged and committed was clear. Commenting on his experience of working in a severely disadvantaged school, one principal ‘Frank’ observed:

[School J] was much more challenging for teachers and dealing with recalcitrant/unmotivated pupils made their work less fulfilling, frustrating and more tiring. Because of lower expectations among pupils – this was a factor. I feel this led to some teachers accepting lower standards in their own expectations of the pupils they were teaching.

An issue that concerned ‘Frank’ greatly was the fate of the more able student. He wondered if the same student was in attendance in a different school, might s/he have had a better educational experience and achieved greater success as a result. In School J, because of the needs of the preponderance of students and the demands these placed on teacher allocation, it was difficult and often impossible to provide subjects at higher level. This experience contrasted starkly with Frank’s tenure as principal of a middle-class school, which was characterised by high levels of parental involvement, including in fund-raising, which ensured the necessary facilities as well as a comprehensive curricular programme could be put in place:

In [school K] I was able to provide for all the needs of the students in terms of education. We could provide higher level classes in several subjects, including quite rare ones. (‘Frank’)

Both schools were in the ‘free education’ scheme and, as it happens, under the management of the same body, the local education and training board. Thus, even within the sector of schools provided by the DES (i.e. leaving aside the fee-paying schools) the provision was quite markedly two-tier in nature, reflecting fundamentally different experiences of schooling. Participants in this study commented on the degree to which pupils found it challenging to negotiate middle-class norms, values and codes of behaviour. Faced with large class sizes, incorporating a wide range of ability levels, and including a high proportion of students with additional needs, there is a grave danger that teachers will opt for a caring approach rather than an educationally and pedagogically challenging one (Devine and McGillicuddy 2016; McCoy, Banks, and Shevlin 2016). This is not necessarily an issue of staff competence but more a pattern that arises from contextual pressures (Lupton and Hempel-Jorgensen 2012). In relation to caring for students and responding to their needs, both pastoral and educational, particular concerns were expressed by many teachers regarding those students displaying signs of special needs but for whom no diagnosis had been provided. They believed that a professionally informed, fuller understanding of the student and the challenges s/he was facing would greatly enhance the school’s ability to meet his/her needs, notwithstanding reservations regarding how labelling, where there is a power differential, can in itself, be considered a disciplinary technology designed to control and delimit the parameters of discourse as well as both define and, indeed, refine the inclusion and exclusion criteria for that same category (Foucault 1975). There was clear evidence that the absence of such understanding and advice in the case of such a high proportion of students was seriously undermining teachers’ sense of efficacy, both individual and collective.

Resourcing: leadership and management

To support the management and leadership requirements of a school, the DES provides a principal, a deputy principal(s) and others who are described as holders of posts of responsibility. Difficulties for school principals in fulfilling their leadership role in the Irish system have been the subject of commentary for well over two decades. The multiplicity of administrative and management functions they have to fulfill ‘exerts a huge clogging influence on the work of real educational leadership’ (Coolahan et al. 2017, 184). This is true of all schools and the problem has grown significantly in the last decade, as more and more work has been assigned to schools, particularly to principals:

I think since I got the job … the workload has probably tripled … many days I come in and I would literally eat my lunch at my desk for ten minutes … I would walk out in the evening and go ‘What did I do today?’ … We are drawing up plans to bring about improvement … you are sitting down to do it and suddenly ten more things arrive. (Principal, 1)

I would love to really get into teaching and learning … but I just find there is so much firefighting or dealing with an upset parent or a kid who has had a really tough time or a staff member who is really struggling. (Principal, 3)

The source of most of these additional requirements is the DES which, at the same time, has cut back on the resources made available to schools. Much of this extra workload originates with the inspectorate who operate according to ‘a positivist agenda set at national level’, which fails to take account of the particularities of each school context (MacRuairc and Harford 2008) and, in that regard, DEIS schools experience greater demands than others (McNamara and O’Hara 2012; Skerritt 2019).

In assessing the particular demands placed on schools in the organisational and pastoral area it was deemed important to get the perspective from those who had leadership experience in both DEIS and more mainstream schools. As it happens none of the principals in the six case-study schools had filled the same role in another school. So, the clearest evidence on the differing leadership challenges faced by principals and their colleagues, depending on the nature of school, came from some of the other participants interviewed during the research. ‘Frank’ had served as principal in two locations. School J was located in an extremely disadvantaged area. Subsequently, ‘Frank’ moved to School K (non-DEIS) which was located in a more affluent area:

The pupils [in school J] were similar to those attending a DEIS school today–high number of special needs, appear undernourished, lower attainment levels in primary school, lower reading age category, low expectations, manifesting a lot of behavioural problems, attention deficit in class and few capable of taking higher level papers … there were exceptions and several pupils did make strident efforts and their achievements were a joy to observe … The pupils [in school K] came from more secure homes. They had to have a head start. They were involved in sport or some other activities, music lessons, dance classes from an early age, more role models, higher aspirations and a much higher standard in terms of reading ages, better vocabulary, were more motivated, socially more comfortable and parents were more supportive.

These circumstances impacted greatly on his experience as he endeavoured to fulfil the requirements of his leadership role:

In some sense the role of school leader was similar, the objectives were the same but you’re working in a different environment and with a different calibre of student. The big difference was in the proportion of time which had to be allocated to dealing with issues, particularly behavioural issues, during the day, or at staff meetings [in school J]. There was much more time to ‘think’, prepare policies, meet with teachers/teacher groups, one could focus more [in school K] on the area of education and teaching.

The contrast ‘Frank’ experienced in providing leadership to the different schools was illustrated clearly and succinctly when he described the topics that dominated weekly meetings with his management team:

In [school J] behavioural issues … in [school K] education, policies, how to raise standards and teaching methodologies.

‘Martin’ filled the role of deputy principal in a school A (DEIS) before moving to school B (non-DEIS). He found that he had to play a far bigger disciplinary role in the former:

In [school A] by 9.30/9.45 I would have six or seven students outside my door waiting to be dealt with [for disciplinary reasons]. Today in [school B, interviewed at lunchtime] I haven’t been approached by either a student or teacher on a disciplinary issue.

‘Tony’ moved from school E (DEIS) to school G (non-DEIS) and compared his experience in the two schools as follows:

The minute the students walked in the door [school E] you were firefighting, and I would describe it as firefighting. Teaching and learning weren’t the priority … keeping the show on the road was … In [school G] I actually couldn’t believe that within the Irish education system there is such a difference between one school and another.

‘Mary’ and ‘Margaret’ contrasted their experiences, first as principals in non-DEIS schools and then fulfilling the same role in DEIS schools:

Because of the complexity of the problems we have to deal with I think we have a far tougher job. The load for us, the emotional load is greater, I think … I don’t think you realise that until you see another school … it’s not only the students we have to get through the system we have to bring the families along as well … Families here have to face a lot of issues that they might not have to face elsewhere … they don’t have the resources … yet I never met a parent who didn’t want the best for their child, but they may not have the capacity to give the best. (‘Mary’)

Yeah, completely different … it’s a huge amount of extra work. The committee work is just huge. Because if you’re involved in different programmes you have to go to more meetings and it’s that that takes up loads of your time. You are going to your school completion programme meetings, access programme meetings and then you probably have a local one and you have one in school and you have a lot more meetings of your care team, your pastoral team, than you might have in a school where you didn’t have the same issues. (‘Margaret’)

The research in the case study schools points very clearly to the fact that DEIS schools are substantially different from those in more mainstream settings. Under various headings, staff face serious challenges in an effort to provide an education equivalent to that being offered in non-DEIS contexts. Lupton summarised the situation that she observed in the UK:

What emerges from the study is not the impossibility of delivering a high-quality education in these settings, but the difficulty of doing so, and the fragility of the situation. Managers and staff describe themselves as running to stand still, constantly under pressure and constantly trading competing objectives. High levels of energy, commitment and resilience were needed in addition to high levels of expertise … Quality could be achieved, but not consistently assured. (2005, 602)

This description is equally applicable in Irish post-primary schools serving disadvantaged areas. A radically different approach to resource provision is necessary to realise the objective outlined in the Education Act (1998) of ‘equality of access to and participation in education’ (Section 6, c).

Resourcing: well-being

The ‘charged emotional atmosphere’ and ‘unpredictability’ (Lupton 2005) in schools serving disadvantaged areas can lead to an extremely disruptive episode occurring during a class without warning. The school needs to have a mechanism for dealing with such situations to allow the teacher to continue to work with the class as a whole. Usually, this involves the year heads as a school’s first responders. Year heads in this study recounted the difficulty in striking the balance between the teaching role and fulfilling the pastoral and leadership duties of a year head. In DEIS schools, an issue can arise at any time without notice and some will require immediate attention. Responding to such events and, at the same time, ensuring that one’s classroom responsibilities are attended to properly is challenging. There is also the question of the energy levels, both physical and emotional, which the year head position demands, while keeping up with the changing role of the teacher and developments in curriculum and pedagogy. One interviewee described her year group of approximately 100 students. Four had suicidal ideation; two had been groomed online, (an issue which had been referred to the Gardaí); one child was in care; and a number of pupils were homeless. In addition, one child was ‘acting out’. In that case, the year head had made seven unsuccessful attempts to contact a parent and the HSCL had called to the house four times, to no avail. Yet she maintained a positive outlook:

I am doing the job I love, minding kids, trying to get the best out of them and helping them get the best out of their lives and helping teachers get the best out of their kids. (YH5)

Other year heads interviewed spoke about being seriously worried about the welfare of students in their care and about being on the constant lookout for students self-harming:

Some we know about, some we don’t. Some are coming from primary with big issues. (YH, 3)

An awful lot of our children are bold, but they don’t know why they’re bold. Something has happened to them. (YH, 5)

Another spoke of an ‘epidemic’ of self-harm among her group of first-year pupils impacting about one in five pupils. Whilst this was unusual, a huge amount of her time was spent dealing with this issue, with the support of her principal and colleagues. At senior cycle, it emerged that year heads and guidance counsellors spent a lot of time supporting students as they dealt with the pressure of the Leaving Certificate examination. Helping students gather the necessary information for exam entry fee exemption, participation in college awareness and open days and stress as the examination approached, all involved considerable time.

Pupils and parents in DEIS schools rely far more on school-based guidance for information on post-school pathways to further and higher education than in more advantaged schools. The reduction of guidance allocation in the 2012 budget, therefore, had a disproportionate effect on disadvantaged students. When the resources are not properly in place to provide career guidance, pupils in DEIS schools typically have ‘nowhere else to turn’, unlike middle-class families who have access to family, social networks, and private education market’ (Lynch and O’ Riordan 1998, 471).

Other year heads commented on the unpredictability of events in DEIS schools: ‘Your plan for the day can be totally disrupted’ (YH, 5), with some questioning the magnitude of the expectations placed by society on schools:

I don’t know if there’s much more a school can do. What I mean by that is … there are so many external factors outside these four walls that influence the pupil’s engagement with school, their family circumstances and all that sort of stuff … there’s only so many hours in a day and if we’re talking about doing more here that means we have to stop doing something we’re doing but I don’t know what I’d stop doing. (YH, 4)

The behavioural issues observed in this study reflect deep-seated wellbeing and mental health issues in the case of many students. While the year head was the first port of call in dealing with these matters eventually, serious cases were referred to the wider student care team including the principal and the counselling department. Many interviewees spoke about what they viewed as a rapidly deteriorating problem of student wellbeing. The six schools all reported that the resources they had to deal with mental health issues were totally inadequate:

We see it here, so much difficulty around mental health with children … but so much is beyond what we can meaningfully address in school. We can do the preliminary and the brief intervention but then we have to refer for more specialised [expertise]. (CG, 2)

In each one, the need for an agency to which some more serious cases could be referred in a speedy manner was articulated. The Martin reports of 1997 and 2006 were quite explicit on this issue. The 2006 report recommended the establishment of support teams for schools to ‘assist with the curricular and behavioural dimensions of catering for an increasingly diverse student population’ (Martin 2006, 117). These teams were to have the necessary range of expertise available to them as needed. The Martin reports have not been implemented. The evidence forthcoming in the case-study schools is that the problem of student wellbeing is now much more acute than it was even a decade ago:

I would be concerned, and I know concern is a vague term, I would be concerned about 30–40% of pupils in this school. (CG, 6)

It’s huge … it’s something that consumes our counsellors. We are all dealing with it. (Principal, 2)

The DES has responded to concerns by introducing the Wellbeing in Education initiative which has been welcomed in schools. However, the extremely limited availability of professional expertise to deal with the more serious individual cases was a cause of widespread concern among those interviewed, particularly guidance counsellors and principals. All six schools were supplementing these resources in an effort to cope. Some were doing so with the assistance of local philanthropic and charitable organisations and others were re-directing teaching resources, which were needed elsewhere, to the role.

Concluding thoughts

Educational disadvantage is a deep-seated and multi-faceted problem which is not amenable to easy and in-expensive solutions. While marginal progress has been made since the introduction of the DEIS scheme in 2005, educational disadvantage continues to be viewed as a school-based issue, with a lack of recognition and response at a policy level of its fundamental, deep-seated relationship with wider economic inequalities across Irish society.

Foregrounding the voices of those working in the six case study DEIS schools in this research, we have endeavoured to give voice to those on the margins, and offer their insights as a counterpoint to the policy discourse which operates based on euphemistic generalisability. Their lived experience of educational disadvantage testifies overwhelmingly that linear, narrow, segregationist approaches to tacking educational inequality which fail to acknowledge the systemic, pervasive and engrained nature of the issue can only fail.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.1964568.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Brian Fleming

Brian Fleming is a retired school principal and a post-doctoral researcher at the School of Education, UCD. His research interests are the history of education, school leadership and educational disadvantage.

Judith Harford

Judith Harford is Professor of Education, Deputy Head of the School of Education and Vice Principal for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in the College of Social Sciences and Law, UCD. Her research interests are history of women's education, educational disadvantage and educational policy.