asked the Minister for Education the plans, if any, to establish educational priority areas; the stage such plans are at; when additional funds will be made available to such areas, and under what type of scheme.

I have no plans at present formally to designate such areas. My priorities are determined by the needs of the individual child, irrespective of where he or she lives. The most immediate of these priorities is to reduce the size of large classes in primary schools which have a particularly adverse effect on socially disadvantaged children.

As the Deputy will be aware, a total of 900 extra teaching posts have been created for this purpose in the current school year. One hundred of these posts are being allocated on a selective basis for remedial work in schools where there is a serious problem of backwardness. Many such schools serve disadvantaged areas as defined in my reply to the Deputy of 10 November last.

Is the Minister not aware that disadvantaged children are much more concentrated in some areas than others and that the mere allocation of 100 extra teachers, not all of whom will go to these areas, in no way meets the need for educational priority area policy?

This is a complex question, as the Deputy knows. It is an effort to deal with the problem of remedial work. Other efforts are being made, as the Deputy well knows, based on the discoveries from the research done by the Rutland Street Project. These discoveries are also being used for the benefit of children in disadvantaged areas.

Does the Minister not recollect telling the House on many occasions that the problems of the more disadvantaged areas were not because of large classes, and is he not therefore aware that his statement here today saying he is not adopting an educational priority area policy will cause considerable disappointment in these areas and among the teachers working there?

I do not agree there is cause for disappointment. The priorities are determined by the needs of the children. Remedial teachers are allocated on the basis of inspectors' reports on needs.

Is there not a need to establish priority areas? Does the Minister know that the necessary information in regard to identifying priority areas has become available from inspectors' reports and the reports of school attendance officers? Does he agree that these socially deprived areas are deserving of greater investment in regard to educational needs than other areas? I am deeply disappointed by his reply which does not disclose any commitment to priority areas.

My commitment to improving the position in disadvantaged areas involves being more than flexible in regard to the pupil-teacher ratio in some of the disadvantaged areas as distinct from dealing with disadvantaged children, no matter which areas they are in. In some of the disadvantaged areas the pupil numbers have gone down and consequently schools are in danger of losing teachers. In such cases I tend to allow the retention of teachers even when the pupil numbers are not there. There is a commitment in regard to remedial teachers, and discrimination in favour of disadvantaged areas is exercised by many in the allocation of remedial teachers.

What guides the Minister when he comes to decide whether to permit latitude in regard to extra teachers, that is, in regard to teacher-pupil ratio. Could he further indicate where these schools are situated?

I depend upon the professional advice of the inspectorate in all cases. I could not say where they are but if the Deputy will put down a question I will provide him with the information.