The message from the steering group on the funding of second-level schools is clear: the method of funding has produced significant anomalies between sectors and between schools, and equality of treatment has been compromised.
While the report addresses the general topic of second-level funding, the section on programmes for the disadvantaged is where the most serious questions are raised. It suggests some of the Department of Education's programmes are inflexible and crude instruments which do not always assist their target group, poorer pupils, in the way they should.
While some of this ground was covered by a technical working group in 1998, the foreword makes it plain that action is needed now.
Referring the report to the Minister for Education, Mr Martin (now succeeded by Dr Woods), its chairman, Mr Edward Blackstock, says: "I feel I should draw your attention to the concern that was expressed by members of the steering group about the inadequacy of the present arrangements in relation to alleviating educational disadvantage."
He adds that in relation to individual and small groups of disadvantaged pupils, "the group is strongly of the view that an improved system of support should be available for these pupils".
While the report pulls no punches on the question of disadvantage, its primary focus is on devising a new funding system for second-level schools. Even under this heading, the report says, the historical development of the system has "resulted in a number of inconsistencies and anomalies between different sectors and between schools of different enrolment size within sectors".
It says the different funding structures for voluntary, community/comprehensive and vocational schools have been a major factor in creating such "anomalies".
The report indicates a wide range of areas where voluntary schools lose out to vocational and community/comprehensive schools. For example, voluntary schools are not entitled to the same level of grants for secretaries and caretakers as are comprehensive/community schools.
Apart from that, the question of inflexibility arises. The report points out that much of the current funding system operates on the basis of thresholds. When the number of pupils passes a certain point, the school is entitled to some benefit.
But this has a downside, it says. "For example, a community school with 499 pupils will be allocated one caretaker, while a school in the same sector with one extra pupil will receive double the caretaking resources."
The report calls for the differences between schools in the three sectors to be ended and recommends that voluntary schools be allowed the same level of grants for caretakers and secretaries as for vocational and community/comprehensive schools.
But it uses more urgent language when dealing with the question of disadvantage. It says the practice of targeting disadvantaged schools, rather than disadvantaged pupils, is questionable. To redress this, individual pupils who are disadvantaged should be provided for.
The package to tackle disadvantage, the New Deal, announced by Mr Martin, will go some way to doing this. Announcing the package, Mr Martin admitted the targeting of schools rather than individual pupils had become a drawback in some programmes.
But underlying all these questions of equity is a major lack of information, the report says. Information on school operating costs, buildings and enrolments are not always reliable, accessible or in an appropriate format. Thus it calls for a post-primary accommodation database, which is being looked at by the Department.
The report says if getting information ceases to be a problem, the best way to proceed in future is to base the majority of funding on a formula and allocate the rest on a supplementary basis.
The supplementary funds would deal with the "specific needs of individual schools not addressed by the formula". It envisages about 10 per cent of the overall funding (not including teachers' pay) falling into the supplementary category.
The Secretariat of Secondary Schools, which represents voluntary secondary schools, has been unhappy for some time with the differences in funding between the three sectors. It claims it has been playing "catch-up" with community/comprehensive and vocational schools since the early 1990s when it was not given a proper inflationary increase in its per-capita grants.
The Department will come under pressure to answer these criticisms without offending the vocational and community/comprehensive sectors. It will also have to examine some of its disadvantage programmes to see if they are performing at full efficiency.