asked the Minister for Education if, in the light of the commitment given in the Programme for National Recovery that the burden of adjustment in education would not fall on the disadvantaged, she will outline the steps which are being taken to ensure that those national schools recognised as disadvantaged for grant-aid but not for staffing purposes are protected from the effects of Circular 23/88's revision of the teacher appointment schedule; if she will designate a further number of schools as disadvantaged for additional staff purposes; if she will approve new remedial teacher posts; the steps she intents to take to ensure the replacement of non-teaching staff such as child care assistants when such posts are vacated in special schools; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Schools which are already recognised as disadvantaged for staffing purposes are being exempted from the revised teacher appointment schedule. This provision was agreed to in talks between the Government and the INTO under the Programme for National Recovery.

The posts of child care assistant in special national schools come within the terms of the Government directive prohibiting the filling of vacancies occurring in the public service. The Government directive applies to all areas of education, with the exception of teaching posts which are subject to pupil-teacher ratio rules. In the circumstances, it is not possible to authorise the filling of vacancies for such staff.

What I really wanted to know was why a disadvantaged area is not a disadvantaged area? Why are areas which under all the criteria are recognised as being disadvantaged not recognised as being disadvantaged by the Department of Education for the purposes of staffing in schools? Is the Minister aware of the ridiculous anomalies being created where schools side-by-side in the same disadvantaged areas have different staffing levels? Will she adjust this anomaly and accept all disadvantaged areas as being disadvantaged?

This differentiation as between being disadvantaged for staffing purposes and being disadvantaged for the payment of special grants has operated for some years. It is not a new arrangement. The House and Deputy Mac Giolla know that. There are two distinct schemes in operation and the inclusion of a school in one scheme does not automatically entitle it to inclusion in another. A total of 164 schools are included in the financial aid scheme which is operated by the special education section. Of these, 68 are also included in the payments section scheme of concession posts while a further 36 have applied for inclusion in the staffing scheme also. The remaining 60 schools are outside of that. I agree that an anomaly arises between those designated as disadvantaged for staffing purposes and those designated for grant purposes only. That anomaly has existed for years and when conditions improve it can be looked at by the Department.

The Minister has given bureaucratic reasons for the anomalies. Is the Minister aware of the effect on the schools which more than any others require remedial teachers, resource teachers, guidance counsellors and so on? Because of this bureaucratic decision these schools cannot have essential teachers. Will the Minister take this matter up with the Minister for Finance who is responsible for the directive and point out to him the anomalies and their effect on the children in these disadvantaged areas?

The arrangement whereby schools currently designated disadvantaged for staffing purposes are exempt from any changed ratios was worked out with the INTO and the Government and is included in the draft agreement. The anomaly to which the Deputy referred is an issue which I hope to put to the Minister for Finance at some time in the future.

This year.

Excuse me. I would like to do that but in the current climate this year it is not feasible. In line with the signed draft agreement between the Government and the INTO in relation to the staffing of schools currently designated as disadvantaged, existing arrangements will be maintained.

The programme did not make a distinction between——

Deputy De Rossa, please do not defy the Chair. Please resume your seat. I was about to call Deputy Birmingham and request a brief supplementary so that I might facilitate Deputy Quill also.