1231. Deputy Louis O'Hara asked the Minister for Education and Youth further to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 414 to 417 of 16 June 2026, the way in which her Department defines a “viable post” for the purposes of Circulars 20/2026 and 21/2026; who determines whether a post is viable; the criteria applied in making that determination; the oversight her Department has of such decisions; the safeguards in place to ensure that recurring teaching requirements are not repeatedly treated as temporary requirements where the teaching work itself continues to exist and a CID-eligible post should be in place; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [61558/26]

Both CID circulars 20/2026 and 21/2026 set out the definition of a viable post for CID purposes, which is as follows:

A viable post is in place for at least a full school year and should come from the school or ETB’s allocation of posts. It should not relate to temporary or substitute cover and there should be no objective grounds.

The guidance documents relating to both circulars also define a viable post and give examples of posts that are both viable and not viable.

In deeming a teacher eligible for CID, a school must ensure that the post being used to award the CID is a viable post and that the teacher satisfies the relevant criteria set out in the circulars.

A school is required to submit the appointment/reappointment form to the Payroll division who process the appointment form. The Department will notify the school/ETB of any issues that may be identified while processing the appointment form.

The implementation of the provisions of Circulars 20/2026 and 21/2026 is a matter for the relevant employer – schools and ETBs.

Both circulars provide for an adjudication process that is designed to facilitate a quick, efficient resolution of disputes about the award or failure to award a CID as required by law. The system is voluntary and not binding; any party is free to pursue statutory relief if so desired.