Vol. 506 No. 4
10 Mr. Barrett asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds who obtain non-CAO access to university; and the way in which this compares with the target set in the White Paper on Education. [15545/99]
19 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Education and Science the steps, if any, he proposes to take to facilitate the entry of a greater number of young people from disadvantaged communities into third level education and particularly into universities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15607/99]
25 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Education and Science the percentage of pupils from disadvantaged areas attending third level colleges; the steps, if any, he is taking to increase this percentage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15613/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 19 and 25 together.
Through targeted funding provided to the universities by the Higher Education Authority and funding from within the overall financial allocations to the institutes of technology, the third level colleges have developed initiatives to tackle the problem of access for the disadvantaged to third level education. These initiatives involve links with second level schools and local communities. Examples of these activities include the Pathways Through Education project, supervised study programmes, summer schools, study skills programmes and mentoring. There are two aspects to these programmes, one involving assistance to students to meet the points requirements for courses, enabling them to obtain a third level place through the standard CAO entry procedure. The other aspect of the programmes is the special entry arrangements through which more flexible entry criteria are applied and various supports are put in place for students entering by this method.
For the first time in 1999, results under the LCVP link modules will count for points for entry purposes into the universities. Recognition of results under LCVP link modules has been available for some years in the institutes of technology.
It will take some time for the effect of these initiatives to be reflected in the numbers going on to higher education. Consequently, my Department does not have detailed statistics on student numbers assisted under these initiatives at present. However, the Higher Education Authority is undertaking an evaluation of the initiatives in all the universities and it is hoped the results of this evaluation will be available before the end of the year. In addition, Professor Patrick Clancy is undertaking his fourth national survey of entrants to higher education on behalf of the Higher Education Authority where the social backgrounds of new entrants to higher education are examined. From a comparison of the results of previous surveys it is evident that a significant reduction of inequality of participation of the various socio-economic groups has occurred.
The Deputies will appreciate the multi-faceted nature of the initiatives under way which is indicative of my commitment to tackling educational disadvantage. These initiatives span the first and second level systems as the need for a holistic approach to promote equality rather than policies focused only on the third level sector and on the transition from second to third level, is well established.
I have announced details of a £6.9 million two year funding initiative to tackle educational disadvantage in the third level sector. Of this funding, £3 million is being specifically allocated to promoting access to third level education among students from disadvantaged backgrounds, including people with disability. A further £1.5 million is being provided to address the issue of non-completion of courses in institutes of technology. Details of the allocation of these additional resources will be announced in due course. The establishment of the Commission on the Points System is also relevant. From the beginning of the next academic year, the full maintenance grant will be paid to all mature students. Until now, the majority of mature students received grants at the adjacent rate. All mature students will now be paid the non-adjacent rate to assist their participation in third level institutions.
Does the Minister agree that his Department's failure to collect detailed statistics on this issue which was one of the few areas for which the White Paper specified targets, is a serious reflection on his own and his Department's interest in this subject? The annual targets were specified in the White Paper. Is it the case that the Department knows the number of people involved in these initiatives but is ashamed to admit what they are? A year ago the Minister admitted that the number of students in this category was 87. We need to see more people taking advantage of Government initiatives. Small scale pilot schemes are not sufficient. The commitments made in the White Paper are not being delivered, or even monitored.
The previous Government published a White Paper in 1995. What happened in the intervening years?
I will be happy to answer the Minister's question if the Ceann Comhairle will afford me the time.
The Deputy would have very little to say. In 1996 and 1997 the amounts given for disadvantaged students in third level were derisory. The 1999 budget was the first in which significant funding was given for the promotion of access to third level education by people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Considerable work has been done visiting various partnerships and examining their schemes and in providing resources for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The Minister does not have numbers. Is it too difficult for him to count?
The Higher Education Authority is undertaking a fundamental and comprehensive survey. An attempt was not made to do this previously.
The Minister provided figures a year ago. Why can he not do so now?
The figures given last year may relate to participants in programmes initiated by universities and other third level institutions. We need to take a national approach to putting supports in place for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The establishment of the Blanchardstown institute, the allocation of more than £20 million for the building of that institute and its remit to take 30 per cent of its student cohort from disadvantaged backgrounds are concrete measures. We will not get results overnight, and let us not pretend that we will.
It was not exactly overnight.
I cannot account for what happened between 1995 and 1997.
The Minister has been in office for two years, yet he has not added ten to the total.
Questions Nos. 19 and 25 specifically ask for the percentage of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Will the Minister confirm that information is not in the possession of the Department?
I do not have the information.
It has not been collected, is that what the Minister is saying?
Yes, I am saying that I do not have the information. It has not been provided.
That is incredible.
That is incredible. The Minister wants to target this area and the White Paper has made it quite clear how the problem should be approached. The Minister is saying, however, that his Department does not collect that information. I find that hard to believe. I urge the Minister to rethink his policy in that regard. How on earth can he evaluate what he is doing, or attempt to reach any targets, if he has no information on progress this year compared to previous years?
We all accept that this problem is multi-faceted, but what are the Minister's views on the low level of maintenance grants for pupils and also the lack of access to pre-school education? Does he accept these are major factors?
What I find incredible about all this is that a White Paper was published by the previous Government, yet nothing actually happened afterwards.
We are talking about what the Minister is doing.
I have already outlined what I am doing, which is providing a significant increase in funding towards initiatives to enable young people to access third level education.
It makes no difference.
For example, more than 800 students are studying for the national certificate of manufacturing technology. That is a new concept developed by the Government task force that I established. A majority of those students are from disadvantaged backgrounds and have non-standard entry requirements. Likewise, the summer courses that were run in Dublin City University and were resourced by the Department had a significant number of unemployed people on them. The courses provided them with qualifications. Right across the board we are allocating additional resources to deal with educational disadvantage. As I said in my initial reply, it is important that this process begins at the pre-school and primary stages. It requires the establishment of a pattern of behaviour within communities where young people aspire to attend third level education.
The Minister does not have the numbers.
Will the Minister reconsider his approach in this area? The present scale is extremely small – £1.3 million is being spent in this area by the HEA. The Minister is providing funds to increase that sum to £6 million, divided by two because, if one reads the text carefully, he is adding two years together. The Minister is, therefore, doubling the current provision. The existing participation is 87 and the Minister will increase it to 200, but that is just not good enough. Will the Minister arrange for his Department to report to him regularly on the impact these matters are having? The information can be obtained if the Department gathers various data on third level colleges. That information should be gathered so that the Minister can make the issue a priority rather than wheeling rhetoric out on command from a word processor.
I am not sure if the Deputy was listening to my reply. The Higher Education Authority is undertaking that work and so, as the Deputy knows, is Professor Clancy who is the major authority in this area. He is undertaking a comprehensive national survey on disadvantage.
We want results, not surveys.
With respect, the Deputy will get results. It is regrettable that the area was neglected for far too long. While the Deputy may not like me saying so, we are targeting resources to the disadvantaged at third level. The improvements for mature students represent a significant additional grant assistance to students who need it most. I found it unbelievable that mature students, in particular, women who have had to make many sacrifices, were denied the full main tenance grant by the previous Government. They were the people who needed the grant more than anybody else, but the previous Government's priorities were wrong.
Leaving aside mature students for the moment, what about students leaving school who want to go straight into third level education? To what extent does the Minister think the low level of maintenance grants is a factor in precluding them from entering the third level system?
A year ago I asked USI and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in Dublin to provide me with the names of pupils who dropped out because of the low level of maintenance grants. To date, however, no one has come back to me with the information. I have spoken to the partnerships, particularly the Dublin Northside Partnership, which have indicated their approach and methodology in helping young people from families on social welfare to remain in college. It is envisaged that the funding I announced today will go towards that work. We will continue annual funding of the Dublin Northside Partnership's initiative, which is a good model of best practice. We cannot throw money everywhere, we must examine what is going on. Their approach is to help such young people with books and transport costs as well as topping up the maintenance grant. This is not necessarily done financially but, for example, by providing vouchers for books. Through that approach we can help many young people to stay in college.
The Minister's one minute has elapsed.
We will have to review this rule, although it has its moments, I suppose.
The Chair must operate it.
Of course.
Are there any more minutes?
Three questions have been taken, but the one minute limit still operates.
If USI or any other agencies can provide cases of people who are in genuine difficulty, will the Minister ensure that a fund is available for them? I am not referring to the one in third level colleges, which works out at about £1 per student. Will significant sums be made available? Will the Minister tell us how community groups in the field can draw down this money? There will be significant interest in his commitment to meeting such needs. How can community groups access the funds and how will the system work?
My comments were not intended to cast aspersions on any of the organisations concerned. I am trying to develop a targeted approach to the maintenance grant. We could spend millions on providing a basic increase in the maintenance grant for everybody. We could also spend millions on increasing the threshold for eligibility, but that would not necessarily result in one extra person from a disadvantaged background getting to college and staying there for the duration of a course. I am trying to identify and isolate young people who genuinely cannot continue in college because of lack of funding, and I will then be in a position to make funding available.
How?
The approach the Dublin Northside Partnership has identified—
The Dublin Northside Partnership is putting money into only one area.
—is one such model that could have a general application throughout the country. It could be done through other organisations in different areas and by setting basic criteria. It might mean a new tier of maintenance grant, for example, in terms of eligibility.
We must target the resources that are available to us. One does not see much evidence of huge deprivation among college students in some areas. Clearly, however, some young people are struggling to stay in college and I am anxious to help them. I want to target resources for them because a broad sweep approach costs an enormous amount of money and does not necessarily provide the desired yield.
I am glad the Minister has partially clarified the issue of the maintenance grant. There are severe problems. While some students might not drop out directly because of the maintenance grant, does the Minister agree it is a major cause of students dropping out? Students who are spending 30 or 40 hours per week on a course have to spend a further 20 hours a week doing part-time jobs to pay for accommodation. Does the Minister believe that this puts pressure on their academic studies and may encourage them to drop out of college?
If young people work excessively while at college it is certainly a factor in their dropping out. From recent surveys, however, we know that other factors contribute to the drop-out level, including the initial course selection process. The drop-out issue is more complex than simply putting it in monetary terms. Many people from advantaged backgrounds drop out of college courses. The reasons can be more educationally based and relate to the original selection of courses. The maintenance grant is not what I would like it to be, but I must prioritise the allocation of my funding. When I came into Govern ment I said I would prioritise investment in primary education. We have made large gains on capital investment in third level education and we have also introduced a maintenance grant for the first time for more than 24,000 plc students, although all plc students are not eligibility because of the maintenance criteria. There was no maintenance grant for post leaving certificate students until we came into office a year and a half ago. The allocation for those grants utilised the bulk of our resources in the first budget. There are priorities and we have gradually and successfully implemented many of our objectives, the latest is that applying to mature students.
Will the Minister accept that, rather than those who go on to third level and subsequently drop out a more significant figure, which we should examine, is the number of young people who do not consider going on to third level? There are a range of factors as to why young people do not go on to third level education. They include the lack of expectation and the realisation that it is not feasible financially to consider it.
I was glad to hear the Minister's announcement today about his intentions in relation to additional funding. I agree that the model used in the northside partnership is a very successful one. Will the Minister clarify if it his intention to extend that funding to all partnership companies because it is badly needed?
It is not intended to do that initially. We are also considering the other partnership companies. The northside partnership has demonstrated its effectiveness, credibility and its strong programmes. It has had a successful number of years. It has shown results and it has a good database in terms of the participants. I would like to support that type of approach elsewhere, but we have not made final decisions on the other partnerships or other similar type schemes. We will be in a position to make announcements on the spending of the money that was provided for in the budget before the end of July.
That is if the partnerships will still exist at that time.
The time allocated for these questions is exhausted and we must move on to Question No. 11.
