The fundamental philosophy behind this motion is the pursuit of equality for all students attending third level education courses in respect of fees, grants and access to facilities. It is a philosophy which is all-inclusive, not exclusive. It aims to increase participation rates in third level education among those groups in our society who up to now have not been participants, people who have effectively been excluded from our system of education. The Fianna Fáil philosophy in the educational context has always been a truly egalitarian one. We want to help and assist those currently attending third level courses against great odds whether they be evening, PLC or post graduate students, women returning to education or part-time and mature students. These students have made great financial sacrifices in the pursuit of educational advancement and should not be ignored.
The recent budget package on third level education ignored and excluded these students, discriminated against them and effectively declared them to be second class citizens in our third level educational system. It also exacerbated the degree of inequality in the system. The Minister, through the decision to abolish tax covenants, realised extra resources for educational expenditure over coming years. However, she decided to allocate these resources in one direction only. No attempt was made to distribute them in an equitable way or to include the category of students referred to in the motion. In my speech I will deal primarily with the plight of the PLC, evening, mature, part-time and post-graduate students, while my parliamentary colleagues will deal with the need to increase the basic rates of maintenance grant, the students attending designated colleges such as the Mater Dei Institute and the need to prepare a strategic plan to accommodate expanded enrolments in third level education.
Without question, the forgotten people in our educational system in so far as the Minister for Education is concerned are the post-leaving certificate students. This sector has witnessed the most exciting and radical developments in education for decades. A wide range of courses is provided including horticulture, fashion, art, sailing, computing, business, health, equitation, estate management, music management etc. A particular feature of this phenomenon has been the degree to which these courses have been developed locally and are firmly rooted in the community. For years people referred to the need for curriculum development at a local level and the PLC phenomenon put flesh on that concept. It allowed many teachers to become creative again, to explore, experiment and inject a new energy and sense of purpose into their lives. Dynamism, energy and innovation have been the hallmark of the PLC development. Most importantly, these courses are closely related to market needs and linked to employment needs and opportunities. Most of the teachers involved in these courses have developed strong links with business, which interaction provides opportunities not only for work experience but for eventual employment in the marketplace. To her shame, the Minister has ignored this phenomenon.
There are approximately 17,500 students attending post-leaving certificate courses this year. The Minister has estimated that 20,000 places will be available in this sector next year. Yet students attending these courses receive no maintenance grants and, despite the resources realised by the abolition of tax covenants, the Minister is refusing to use some to provide financial support for these students. This injustice is further highlighted by the fact that even though the courses are ESF-funded no maintenance grant is available to PLC students, yet maintenance grants are available to students on ESF funded courses in regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology. In addition, many students have to travel to PLC courses which are located in centres such as the College of Commerce in Cork, Ballyfermot Senior College, Dún Laoghaire Community College, Inchicore College, etc. Students on FAS and CAO-CAS courses can avail of financial support. The PLC sector is now the only public education sector whose students have to fund themselves entirely. These students have to pay rent, buy food and books and meet travel expenses. Some PLC courses last three years and students are finding it increasingly difficult to survive.
I have spoken to the representatives of students in this area who have recounted sad and distressing stories of students who have dropped out before the completion of their courses and of students working late at night in pubs and supermarkets in an effort to eke out an existence for themselves, often to the detriment of their studies. Why is the Minister so callous and uncaring in her attitude to these students? She may argue that she will abolish fees for these courses but that is a cynical con job which has fooled nobody. It can even be argued that the abolition of these charges will have a detrimental impact on the PLC colleges which urgently require capital funding to update equipment and provide extra places to accommodate increasing student numbers. The abolition of these charges will rob them of a useful revenue base which facilitates such necessary advancement.
Considerable confusion surrounds this proposal. Various charges have developed in PLC courses and some students are charged £25 to £35 to cover materials and services, some are charged up to £70 while others are charged nothing at all. However, some fees are payable to professional bodies such as auctioneering, accountancy and marketing institutes and it is still unclear whether these will continue. The crucial issue for these students is the provision of maintenance grants, not the abolition off fees. Essentially the Minister's decision to abolish university fees will save some families up to £2,500 per year, irrespective of how wealthy they are, while the families of PLC students may save up to £70 per year. This is the Labour Party's concept of equality and fair play.
The absurdity of this situation was best summed up by Christina Murphy in an article in the Education and Living supplement to The Irish Times, in February:
Then we will continue to have a situation whereby a student from a family with an income of say £16,000 will qualify for a maintenance grant to go to Trinity, but a student with a family income of £8,000 would get no maintenance to go to Ballyfermot Senior College; it will actually be cheaper to go to university than to a PLC course, which is absurd considering the whole idea of PLC courses was to cater for those who did not make the points to get into university.
I call on the Minister to respond positively to our motion and to provide maintenance grants to PLC students.
One way of reducing inequality in higher education and increasing participation rates by those in disadvantaged and lower socio-economic groupings in our society is by adequately funding and resourcing mature students attending third level education. The Higher Education Authority's steering committee technical working group undertook research in this area and made a number of important recommendations. In 1993-94 there were 6,665 mature entrants to higher education, of whom 1,697 were full-time and 4,968 were part-time. It is estimated that mature entrants represent about 16 per cent of all higher education entrants, including part-time and full-time entrants.
The Minister made no provision in the budget for mature students but essentially ignored their plight. The Higher Education Authority's report stressed the need to make proper provision for mature, second-chance students and saw such provision as a second and final attempt to address serious inequality in third level education. The report's research indicated that the socio-economic profile of mature students is different from that of non-mature students. There is a stronger concentration of lower middle class groups in the mature student population and a weaker concentration of higher professionals, farmers and skilled manual workers in particular. Studies by the group also revealed that, while mature students may pursue higher education for personal fulfilment, the majority do so to enhance their employment and career prospects. In a study on full-time mature students it was found, for example, that only 31 per cent were employed, 19 per cent were registered unemployed while 26 per cent were unemployed but not registered and 15 per cent were working full time in the home without pay.
The group report underlines the importance of this sector in helping to eliminate disadvantage. It states:
What is clear from the data available therefore is that full-time provision for mature students in higher education is catering principally for relatively disadvantaged lower middle class people who may have the Leaving Certificate or some other form of professional or occupational qualifications but who are unemployed or not in secure employment.
Notwithstanding this, however, those from the lowest socio-economic group are still only minimally represented among mature students. The report cites the absence of pro-active policies within the higher education sector, including adequate financial support for part-time study, flexible modes of delivery and assessment procedures and adequate support and guidance services as factors in making it extremely difficult for economically and socially disadvantaged mature students to enter into and succeed within the system. Furthermore, the committee's research indicates that lack of adequate financial resources is the principal difficulty experienced by full-time mature students while attending higher education.
The working group believes strongly that an enhanced level of grant should be introduced for mature students from low income backgrounds and, in addition, that low income part-time students need to have fees paid and be given adequate maintenance support on a pro rata basis. It was also noted that mature students have financial problems arising from their adult-related commitments. The report recommended that the special costs involved for mature students with dependent children should be taken into account in any revised grant support scheme and that individual family circumstances would need to be taken into account in determining eligibility for, and level of, grant support. It is felt that women were likely to have caring commitments and it was recommended that the unique problems women have in returning to higher education should be systematically addressed when developing grant arrangements. The unique requirements of minority groups, such as travellers and people with disabilities, will also have to be addressed.
Primarily, the research of the working group indicated that one of the biggest problems facing the socially and economically disadvantaged mature student entering higher education was reaching a stage educationally, psychologically and economically at which they were in a position to apply. To deal with this, the working group recommended the development and increased resourcing of the adult, community and further education sectors, so that alternative entry routes to higher education are fully available to those in need of a second chance.
In the context of that research, it is extraordinary that the Minister essentially ignored these recommendations in putting together her budgetary package, excluded a sector of education which offers opportunities for social inclusion and progression and which has the capacity to break down class barriers in higher education. She also ignored the recommendations of another report on mature students, the de Buitléir report on the higher education grants system, commissioned by her.
Mature students on part-time or evening courses are not entitled to any maintenance grant; those studying in full-time day courses are eligible for the higher education grant. The problem, however, is that regardless of age, mature students are means-tested on their parents' income if they live at home. As many mature people giving up a job to go to college would move back to their parents' homes, this is a real catch 22 situation.
The de Buitléir report recommends that mature applicants over the age of 25 years should be means-tested on their own income regardless of residence. It is disappointing that this has not yet happened. In Northern Ireland students can get additional grants for spouse and child support. In short, as pointed out by Olive Keogh in an excellent article on mature students in the Education and Living supplement of The Irish Times of 14 March “... for people already working or recently unemployed, the financial support to upgrade their qualifications is woefully inadequate.” She concluded by stating that for many mature people considering going to college to upgrade their qualifications “the prospects are very bleak indeed.”.
There was considerable anger and disbelief by mature students at the decisions to exclude them from the Minister's budgetary package. A mature evening law student at UCC who, because she is classified as part-time, is excluded from the Minister's fees abolition programme stated:
I think the decision is very unfair and I am both angry and disappointed that a Labour Minister who should be the first to redress social inequality should have introduced such an arbitrary measure.
Another student who is studying for a BA by distance learning at a cost of just over £4,000 was equally annoyed and indignant, pointing out that distance education is indispensable in that it allows people access to education who could not achieve a degree by any other method. An evening Arts student at UCD made the valid point that the term part-time student is essentially a misnomer. She attends college four nights a week and has practically as many lecture hours as a day student doing exactly the same degree courses. She articulated her anger in a most forthright fashion by stating:
... We are absolutely outraged at the way we have been treated by the Minister. This is blatant discrimination and we are amazed that a Government with Labour and Democratic Left who consider themselves egalitarian could support such a two tier system.
I quoted from the comments of students who are angry at the Minister's policy of exclusion and elitism. Their anger is honestly and profoundly felt, and justified. I have also quoted from reports undertaken by the Higher Education Authority on the Minister's behalf. Yet she has chosen to ignore the de Buitléir and the HEA's working group reports. In the budget and in her fees abolition proposals, she pre-empted their work and in the process created the basis for new and greater inequities in the system.
The Minister's approach is similar in relation to part-time students in higher education. The interim report of the HEA's steering committee's technical working group included useful research and work in this area based on a study on participation of part-time students in higher education. It took as its starting point the OECD definition of part-time students in higher education as those who are enrolled in a programme of study organised in such a way that they are able to undertake another activity either full-time or part-time. The data available proved to be completely inadequate for the task and the Department should deal with this immediately. Its findings show that in the academic year 1992-93 almost 24,000 students were registered for part-time third level courses, of which almost 60 per cent were in the regional technical college-DIT subsector. By far the greatest concentration occured in the main urban areas, with about 75 per cent of students living within 15 miles of the college attended. The majority of students attended in the evenings and at weekends. The research indicates that almost 90 per cent of participants were in employment and almost all cited career-related reasons for their participation. Professional upgrading is the predominant objective of participants.
The report echoes the sentiments expressed by students that the definition of part-time education and the sharp distinction drawn between it and full-time education is difficult to sustain. There are significant variations in required hours of attendance between faculties for full-time courses and there are also wide variations in the required hours of attendance for different part-time courses. Indeed, weekly or yearly hours of attendance for part-time courses may be equivalent in some instances to those for full-time students, qualifications may be obtained within the same time scale for both. The distinctions will become even more blurred as time progresses and technologies develop.
Participation in part-time higher education is good for the economy and very cost-effective. The funding mechanism for part-time education is inadequate particularly for the regional technical college's and the Dublin Institute of Technology. Subsequently in many cases part-time courses will be provided only where they are self-financing. This places a particular burden on part-time students who cannot qualify for means-tested grants.
The working group made two important recommendations calling for a comprehensive review of funding arrangements with a view to (a) achieving a more equitable basis of funding institutions in respect of part-time and full-time on a course to course basis and (b) bringing part-time students within the student grant system to permit them to qualify on a proportionate basis for means-tested grants. Better facilities are also required for this sector, in particular more induction and study skills courses are necessary for part-time students, particularly for those coming from disadvantaged backgrounds, and more extensive guidance should be provided relating to college services. In addition, as part-time students may have more family and community ties, consideration should be given to franchising Outreach centres and to enhancing the provision of distance education.
In her budgetary package the Minister again ignored the research, work and recommendations of the technical working group in relation to part-time students. They were excluded and no specific measures were introduced to improve their neglected situation.
The Minister also discriminated against postgraduate students in the most appalling manner. It also seems extraordinary that the Minister would not have been aware of the work being undertaken by the Science, Technology and Innovation Advisory Council whose recently published report highlighted very serious under-provision in the post-graduate area. The report put forward a host of recommendations affecting business, higher education, State agencies and the Government. It proposed the establishment of a Cabinet sub-committee to deal with matters of science and technology, particularly to settle budgetary and Estimates issues, and to establish national priorities. One wonders whether, if this committee had been established prior to this year's budget, the fees abolition proposal would have gone ahead in the manner and form it did or whether postgraduates would have been so excluded and discriminated against. Would the Minister have been allowed to allocate the entire resources to be realised from the abolition of convenants to one sector only, to the exclusion of so many others? If Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte were honest with us he would no doubt say no.
The report painted a damning picture of under-provision in the postgraduate area. The report recommends that basic research funding for higher education should be increased from £1.5 million to £6 million per year and a further £5 million should be made available to redress the deficiencies in research equipment. Furthermore, it argued that each PhD scholarship should be funded at a level not less than £3,000 per year. If one listens to any postgraduate student in this area one will hear tales of obsolete equipment, poor library facilities, overcrowded laboratories and inadequate research grants. The recent budget served only to worsen the situation for postgraduate students. They will still have to pay their fees and will not benefit from the budget proposals. Parents who were convenanting to postgraduate children will lose the convenant savings and will gain nothing as their fees have not been abolished.
The Minister has even ignored the deliberations of the National Education Convention. In the report on the deliberations of the convention the following conclusion was made:
It is a matter of great concern that support for post-graduate research students has declined in recent years. Convention participants felt strongly that there was a need for significantly greater support for post-graduate research. It was argued that the amount of money required was not large and that the universities and society as a whole got a very good return for the money invested in this area.
Why bother to have such conventions? Why bother to consult? Why bother to claim an interest in consensus while continually ignoring the recommendations of a convention, the establishment of which resulted in such kudos for the Minister?
I agree with the report's conclusion that the research capacity of the higher education system is an important national resource and that for the future it is imperative that priority be given to developing its research potential. If only the Minister could have allocated such priority to the sector in the recent budgetary package on education. At The National Education Convention a very significant presentation was made by the Department of Education outlining the cost of educational reforms and change. The Secretary of the Department presented a schedule of illustrative costings stating that most of these "reflect the proposals at the convention". They are also implied by proposals in the Green Paper on Education and Government policy. On aggregate they amounted to an extra £478 million. The Secretary of the Department drew the following conclusion, "Significant improvements in the education system are expensive, education is competing for resources with other policy areas and expenditure and taxation". He concluded that there would be a need for prioritisation among desirable inputs. The secretariat also concluded that there was "striking concordance of view that serious and sustained action needed to be taken to remedy various features of inequality of education". It was also agreed that a policy of prioritising and targeting areas of most urgency or fundamental need is necessary if real progress is to be made.
It is a pity the Minister did not take on board the views and opinions expressed at the National Education Convention in relation to prioritisation, targeting and the eradication of inequality. Her budgetary package did not reflect the most equitable use of resources. It was not fair and excluded too many students in different sectors of our third level educational system, particularly sectors which offer opportunities for advancement for lower socio-economic groups and people who have not traditionally been participants in higher education.
Many hailed the 1992 general election as a significant one for the Irish Labour Party. It certainly was significant in a numerical sense, with extra votes and seats. In retrospect it was also significant in terms of the evolution of that party. No longer does it cling to its alleged historic mission of creating genuine equality, of being a voice for the marginalised, disadvantaged and less well off. It has jettisoned the egalitarian principles of Connolly and Larkin. It is now a party controlled by its new electoral configuration. Its acquired electoral base now determines its policies. Its guiding principle is the retention of votes and seats, not the social and economic advancement of our people. Nowhere is this more manifest than in its educational policies.
Fianna Fáil since its foundation has always given pride of place to education. We have always believed in the principle of equality of opportunity in education, and it is in that spirit we put this motion before the House tonight.
