In the Citywide News published on 27 February it was reported that the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, stated that “Linguistic and cultural diversity present real opportunity” at the launch of the European Year of Languages. The information I am about to impart to the House in respect of courses offered at Tallaght Institute of Technology brings into sharp focus the Minister's assertion on that date.
For the past ten years the Institute of Technology in Tallaght has offered a very appealing language and marketing course which has attracted a large number of students to attend the institute. There is a high placement rate among graduates of this course, which offers a sequential progression from certificate to diploma to degree level. It is now proposed, for reasons which are unclear, to withdraw, from students already enrolled at the college, the option of pursuing a degree in marketing and languages and to replace this with a single marketing course where the language element has been so emasculated as to significantly reduce the value of the qualification and, accordingly, the employment prospects, on graduation, of the students involved.
A number of questions arise from these proposed changes, which the college authorities and the Minister must address. First, are the proposed changes so manifestly unfair as to be illegal? Students who entered this course in recent years are finding the ground rules changing, thus denying them their legitimate expectations of a degree in marketing and languages. This was obviously available to them as an option when they originally enrolled in the college. Second, who is responsible for this proposal? Is it the sole responsibility of the college authorities? What role, if any, has the NCEA played in this? Third, what consultations, if any and with whom, took place before this proposal entered the public domain. Pupils have complained to my office that they were effectively presented with a fait accompli. Fourth, what is the main raison d'être for the proposed change? Does it have anything to do with the significant increase in enrolment of first year students on the course last September and the consequent strain this has placed on financial and human resources? Fifth, if such a change is desirable and defensible, should it not only be introduced on a phased basis applying only to students who enrol after 1 September 2001? Sixth, given the success of the course to date, is change of any sort really necessary?
These proposed changes have caused considerable upset to the students directly involved. It is a classic case of how not to implement change. I appeal to the Minister not to pull the plug on the course on which students had set their hearts when the entered the college. If change is necessary, let it be on a planned and phased basis coming into effect next September for those enrolling at the college for the first time. The change should not be made in the arbitrary and authoritarian fashion in which it has been proposed and foisted upon students without prior consultation.