Students, teachers and policymakers identify gaps pushing Irish pupils out of school early

Students, parents, teachers, school leaders and policymakers who gathered for a three-hour dialogic seminar at Dublin City University have identified what they see as the critical fault lines pushing vulnerable young people out of education in Ireland: a post-pandemic collapse in attendance, fragmented support services, chronic funding shortfalls and a rigid exam-centred system that fails to recognise diverse forms of achievement. The study, part of the Horizon Europe SCIREARLY project involving ten European countries, brought 35 stakeholders into structured, egalitarian dialogue to examine why some students still fall through the cracks despite nearly two decades of targeted policy intervention.

The context is stark. Longitudinal data indicate that the most disadvantaged students are up to five times more likely to drop out of school than their peers from high-income backgrounds, and the PISA 2018 report shows immigrant students are over-represented among poor performers. Ireland performs considerably better than the EU average and has surpassed the EU target on early school leaving, reaching just 2.8 percent, yet the performance of disadvantaged students still does not match that of their advantaged peers. The main policy instrument, the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools programme launched in 2006, directs extra resources to schools serving disadvantaged communities through reduced pupil-teacher ratios, literacy and numeracy interventions, the Home School Community Liaison scheme and the School Completion Programme.

The researchers chose an unusual method. Rather than relying on interviews, surveys or secondary datasets, which they argue offer fragmented perspectives and underrepresent lived experience, they used a dialogic seminar grounded in dialogic learning theory. Knowledge was treated as emerging through interaction among diverse perspectives, with participants positioned as co-researchers rather than subjects. Purposive sampling recruited teachers, liaison coordinators, guidance counsellors, principals, students, parents and government policymakers from DEIS schools in the Dublin region; of 45 people invited, 38 agreed and 35 attended. Participants first received evidence-informed briefings on prevention, intervention and compensation measures, then discussed five themes in mixed groups before a plenary session.

Attendance emerged as the most immediate concern. One staff member reported that post-COVID absences had risen from 10 percent to 25 percent, amounting to roughly 200 absences a day out of 640 students. A parent representative argued the pandemic changed the whole culture around presence, while liaison teachers described parents unable to get children out of bed, producing cycles of frustration and mutual blame between families and schools. Strikingly, the students themselves disagreed, saying attendance had actually improved, a gap the researchers attribute to differing definitions of attendance, such as logging into online classes versus physical presence, and to hybrid learning allowing more consistent participation.

The seminar also documented a shift in how students engage. Teachers described a senior cohort who developed a strategic focus, selecting subjects they believed they would do best in while keeping their eyes on the Leaving Certificate. Some sixth-year students balanced study with full-time work because their families needed the income, and several educators said this dual engagement, though demonstrating admirable responsibility, could devalue formal education and contribute to fatigue. Meanwhile, participants described a democratisation of knowledge: students now access the same information as educators about attendance requirements and school-leaving procedures, weakening traditional mechanisms of control. One principal noted this has fundamentally altered the dynamic between students and schools, and in areas of high youth unemployment students’ sense of agency in opting out is reinforced by the perceived inefficacy of institutional sanctions.

On prevention, stakeholders broadly endorsed early childhood education and care but criticised Ireland’s predominantly private model, in which a publicly subsidised service is privately provided with limited public power to influence practice. Recruitment and retention of qualified staff, driven by low pay and limited career progression, was seen as undermining continuity. Transitions between school stages were viewed as essential, with DEIS planning requirements mandating schools to plan each transition alongside liaison coordinators, though leaders warned that individualised transition planning carries a substantial administrative and financial burden with no dedicated budget. Vocational education generated strong interest, with calls to revitalise the apprenticeship model and shift societal mindsets, summed up by one student: those who want to be plumbers get left out early because support focuses on the main courses of doctor, lawyer and teacher.

Intervention measures exposed deeper structural problems. Guidance counsellors reported nowhere near enough provision at any level, with one principal describing a charity-funded psychotherapist who is completely overstretched and only four psychological assessments available per year. Students suggested peer-led counselling and professionals who understand their circumstances. Participants also described a fragmented web of agencies, including the National Educational Psychological Service, CAMHS, SASSY and Crosscare, operating in isolation: students are referred from one service to the next, waitlisted, and age out of systems with problems unresolved. The removal of attendance officers from the School Completion Programme was cited as leaving schools purely reactive. Crucially, stakeholders agreed that the one-size-fits-all DEIS model does not work, calling for tiered access to supports so that individually disadvantaged students in designated schools, and non-designated schools containing disadvantaged students, are not missed, and warning that more advantaged pupils within DEIS schools can reap disproportionate benefit.

Compensation measures and policy recommendations centred on financial realities and flexibility. Students highlighted unacknowledged cumulative costs, from hundred-euro exam fees to books and mid-year extras, while further education leaders said financial hardship, including homelessness, is the biggest driver of dropout in their sector. Participants welcomed the broadening Leaving Certificate pathways, such as the Applied and Vocational Programme options and newer subjects, but argued the state exams system remains too inflexible and that COVID-era calculated grades represented a missed opportunity to embed more formative, school-based assessment. They also endorsed a Comprehensive Employment Strategy that links education to employment through individualised plans and tracks students for two years after leaving school.

The authors conclude that Ireland needs a more integrated and relationally attuned policy framework, moving beyond fragmented interventions toward system-wide coherence grounded in equity and student agency, with dialogic engagement between policymakers, practitioners and learners as a crucial ingredient. They frame the study as contributing methodologically, by demonstrating participatory dialogue in programme evaluation, and contextually, by surfacing practical barriers conventional approaches may miss. The limitations are explicit: findings are specific to Irish educational settings, the dialogic seminar is difficult to scale or replicate, and qualitative depth constrains representativeness. Even so, the message from those closest to the classroom is clear: policy ambition must catch up with the lived realities of students balancing poverty, work and changed expectations of what school is for.

Subject of Research: Stakeholder perspectives on policy gaps contributing to early school leaving and underachievement in Irish DEIS schools

Article Title: Dialoguing educational challenges: Understanding early school leaving and underachievement

Article References: Gardezi, S., O'Hara, J., McNamara, G., Cassidy, A., Brown, M., & McNamara, M. (2026). Dialoguing educational challenges: Understanding early school leaving and underachievement. Heliyon, 12(16), Article e45616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2026.e45616

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2026.e45616

Keywords: early school leaving, educational disadvantage, DEIS programme, student engagement, Ireland, dialogic seminar, school attendance, vocational education, guidance counselling, early childhood education, educational policy, SCIREARLY