Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection debate -
Wednesday, 28 Nov 2012

Reform of Third Level Education: Discussion

I welcome witnesses from the Department of Education and Skills and the Higher Education Authority, HEA, to today's meeting to discuss reform of third level education. From the HEA I welcome Mr. Tom Boland, chief executive officer, Ms Mary Kerr, deputy chief executive, and Mr. Fergal Costello, head of funding institutes of technology. From the Department of Education and Skills I welcome Ms Mary Doyle, assistant secretary, Ms Ann Forde, principal officer, and Mr. Christy Mannion, principal officer.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give this committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and the witness continues to so do, the witness is entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of his or her evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I will start with the Higher Education Authority. I invite Mr. Boland to commence his presentation.

Mr. Tom Boland

Thank you, Chairman. I thank the committee for the opportunity to meet it. It is timely to discuss the national strategy as we step up a gear in terms of the implementation of the strategy.

The HEA is centrally involved in supporting the Minister and the Department in the implementation of the higher education strategy. We are very much guided by the principles and objectives outlined by the Minister in his recent speech to the higher education sector on Thursday, 22 November. Those objectives are recognising the importance of higher education in producing the human capital and research outputs that will underpin continued competitiveness and national economic recovery; building on our favourable demographic context – our large and expanding pool of young people that is one of our biggest strategic assets and one that many OECD countries envy; and recognising that Ireland operates in an international context, and that our higher education system and its institutions must compete and be successful in that international context. It is not just our institutions but our graduates that must compete.

My colleagues from the Department for Education and Skills will outline the broad context for reform and the main actions for change we are undertaking in partnership with it. I hope to complement what the Department will say by focusing on three particular elements of the programme. The first is building the landscape of higher education. The second is reforming the funding models, including introducing an element of performance into the funding of higher education, and the third is sustainability.

The national strategy recommended that the future higher education system should consist of autonomous, well-governed institutions that are strategically led. It also recommended that the strategy would be informed by a recognition of their particular strengths as institutions within themselves and within a broader higher education system, a recognition of national policy objectives, and a commitment by the institutions, individually and collectively, to meet those objectives according to their strengths and with a high degree of accountability.

Over the course of 2012, the HEA has led an intensive process of engagement with the higher education institutions aimed at better understanding their particular mission both now and into the future, to set the basis for the future higher education landscape. We have done this through our request for institutions to submit their vision for their future role in the system, and we have correlated this with extensive data collection on current institutional profiles and performance. We have also received international advice and assessed the institutional submissions against the stated objectives of the Hunt report - the national strategy for higher education. We have commissioned the ESRI to advise on the future demand for higher education, both student and employer-led. We aim to undertake further discussions with the institutions early next year, and to provide final advice to the Minister by March 2013. Thereafter, it will be a matter for the Minister to decide how best to move forward with the recommendations he receives on the structure of the system.

The process will also be critical in setting up the further development of our funding model into the future. In considering that future development, it is appropriate first to recognise the many strengths of the current funding model. It is widely recognised, within and outside Ireland, to be fair and impartial. I might also add that it is transparent. Furthermore, it has been very successful in meeting critical State objectives. The massive expansion from roughly 36% to approximately 65% participation in the past 20 years has been facilitated by a funding model that has incentivised efficiency and growth. In addition, institutions have played their part by using the model to manage their operations consistently within budget. It is noteworthy that despite the very severe funding restrictions of recent years and the significant rise in student numbers, all the HEA-funded institutions have managed within budget and produced quality outcomes in terms of graduates.

We are conscious the HEA can and must do more in this space. We are especially conscious that while our funding model is fair and impartial and drives efficiencies, it is relatively weak on assessing strategy and assessing performance against strategy, in particular the latter.

It is for that reason we proposed, and the national strategy accepted, an increased role for assessment of institutional strategy and for that assessment to feed into institutional funding. We want to ensure that as institutions shape their strategy, they do so in accordance with the principles I outlined, namely, that they shape their programmes and activities in line with their institutional strengths in the context of their role as part of a system of higher education rather than as stand-alone institutions, and that they take account of and deliver against national objectives in an accountable way. We have engaged in consultation with the institutions on how to translate this objective into practice, and we have taken international advice. We expect to commence this process in 2013 and to develop it over succeeding years. I emphasise that the process I refer to is a process of strategic dialogue and funding by performance by reference to outcomes.

The Higher Education Authority, HEA, is concerned, as is the Minister and his Department, to underpin the future development of Irish higher education on a sustainable basis. Sustainability has a number of elements. Within higher education we must take account of the extensive resources invested by the State and ensure best value is delivered. That is the point of departure. Considerable achievement is evident in shared procurement but much more needs to be done to improve shared services, and that has major implications in changes to work practices and, potentially, human resources strategies.

We must expand our thinking on the way other forms of institutional collaborations can improve quality, in particular how co-operation between institutions can enhance quality of programmes. We know there is considerable fragmentation of activity in many discipline areas. We must balance the important benefits that fragmentation or multiple provision can bring in terms of increased access, especially on a regional basis, against considerations that fragmentation may reduce the quality of the provision. We know from experience in the HEA that at the research level collaboration can bring great benefits. We must aim for similar outcomes at undergraduate level, and regional clusters of activity, as proposed in the national strategy, can be very important in this regard. I stress that we see these not as limited clusters between higher education institutions but also with further education providers and other relevant stakeholders.

More generally, there is an important sustainability strategy issue for Ireland. I mentioned previously the major strategic asset we possess in the form of a growing young population. We must remember that investment in their education has produced and continues to produce major returns for the individuals themselves, employers, society and the economy. That is not simply another cost to be met in an annual budget but part of investing in Ireland’s future. I will use an analogy to illustrate it graphically. We would be aghast if we read of a company discovering huge offshore oil fields but deciding not to exploit them because of significant upfront costs. No company would do that because they would see the future benefits that would arise for years after those initial investments. In that sense our young people are our oil, although there are indications that there have been some discoveries of oil off the south coast. However, the point is a valid one. We should consider our young people now entering higher education, and who will enter in increasing numbers for the foreseeable future, not as a cost but as our investment in our future.

Ms Mary Doyle

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to attend. We were asked to come before the committee to brief members on the higher education reform programme embarked upon following the publication of the National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030. That was published in early 2011 and the key components of that strategy were subsequently endorsed in May 2012 by the current Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, on behalf of the Government. The implementation of that reform programme falls to the Department and also to the Higher Education Authority in a key leadership role.

In summary, the strategy outlines the change agenda that will result in a modern, flexible higher education system which is more accessible to a much greater range of people and has a high quality and innovative provision of teaching research as its hallmark. This will require having smaller numbers of large, high quality, well-governed institutions that are funded sustainably, each with a distinct mission to meet a growing diversity of demand and new challenges. That is the key objective of the reform process.

There are a range of recommendations set out in the strategy which I have provided to the members and which I do not propose to go through, but they range from the requirement to ensure diversity and flexibility of provision to meet demands, to ensuring the quality and sustainability of the system is assured. As I said, the strategy is being implemented in close collaboration with our colleagues in the Higher Education Authority and in partnership with higher education institutions and many other stakeholders in this complex landscape.

I will talk briefly about three key areas, namely, the overarching implementation arrangements, the main challenges to be addressed, and the key priorities for implementation for 2012 and 2013. Implementation is at the heart of this reform process and to ensure effective oversight of implementation, the Department of Education and Skills has established a high level implementation oversight group chaired by the Secretary General of the Department. Members of the group are from a diverse range of organisations with lead responsibility for implementation of recommendations. We have published the implementation plan on which the work of the group is based which shows the recommendations and the associated responsibility for implementation. We have also published the latest progress report on priority areas and we are glad to make that available to members. That is our key implementation structure.

There are many challenges but among the main ones identified by the strategy is the much higher demand for participation by students - internationally and domestically - adult learners and school leavers in the coming decades. Both the Department and the ESRI have predicted an increase in full-time demand in the region of 16% by 2020, which is a very high number in a short space of time. A second challenge will be the continued constrained financial environment at a time when demand is rising. The third challenge we would articulate is the pressing need to mobilise and prioritise resources while enhancing quality in all areas of activity in the higher education sector. That would include the key pillars of research, teaching and learning, and engagement.

Progress to date has been good, and I will now briefly outline some of the progress that has been made. Regarding the key element of teaching and learning, last week the Minister launched the national forum for the enhancement of teaching and learning in higher education which will provide the national forum for the discussion of issues relating to the enhancement of teaching and learning and provide a key leadership role across all the higher education institutions in this crucial area. To support that work and other work, national student and employer surveys are being developed because it is considered very important to have that feedback built into the development and implementation of policy. A full-scale national pilot on the student survey will run in the first quarter of next year.

A second key area on which significant progress has been made is in terms of advancing the agenda in regard to the key transition from second to third level. That is a major agenda for the Minister and a transition steering group will submit a report on proposals for change, including timeframes for implementation, early in the new year. We have also established an enterprise engagement forum, again chaired by the Secretary General, to formalise the engagement with enterprise given the importance of that agenda for the Department.

In that context, in regard to skills and the labour market, there has been strong collaboration among the Department of Education and Skills, the Higher Education Authority, the expert group on future skills needs and enterprise agencies, among others. That has led to the implementation of a suite of measures to address identified skills deficits. Targeted funding has been made available also to provide high quality, flexible higher education opportunities for the unemployed and those seeking jobs in areas where there are identified skills shortages. Members will be familiar with the Springboard and the ICT skills projects.

The last area I want to deal with is system development, which is at the core of implementation. Last week, the Minister for Education and Skills addressed the higher education sector and outlined four priorities for future landscape development and reconfiguration.

These are: strengthening our university system; the development and consolidation of the IT sector; achieving critical mass through collaboration and consolidation and the formation of regional clusters between universities, stronger institutes of technology and future technological universities; and increased sustainability and capacity in the higher education system, as alluded to by Mr. Boland.

The HEA is developing system-configuration advice for the Minister for spring 2013 and is examining a range of inputs on which to base further engagement with institutions on these issues. We envisage the HEA will engage with institutions in detail in the new year. This process will culminate in the HEA's advice to the Minister in the spring. The reconfiguration of the system is one of the key next steps.

A second key next step concerns legislative change, which is essential to underpin the complex and ambitious programme of reform. Work has commenced on the preparation of a programme of statutory reform. There are a number of objectives, the first of which is to provide for the merging and establishment of consolidated institutes of technology as technological universities. Designation will occur on the meeting of the criteria. The second component is putting in place legislation to strengthen the powers of the HEA to regulate the higher education system.

Institutional governance structures will also be reformed and legislation has been brought forward to increase the accountability of the institutions and ensure they are in line with Government policy on staffing and numbers. This legislative change is a major priority for the Department and HEA.

The third key next step relates to the sustainability of the system. In parallel with the system development process, the HEA, in collaboration with the Department, has engaged in further analysis of institutional and system sustainability issues.

I have given a very broad overview of developments on the higher education reform programme. We are happy to answer the questions of members.

I thank Mr. Boland and his team from the HEA, and Ms Doyle and her team from the Department. They are present to discuss the very pressing challenges in the third level sector and those to be faced in the coming years.

The Hunt report forms the basis of the plan for third level education. The report outlined that we would require €500 million per year for ten years to meet the challenges faced in expanding the education system and student numbers. There are significant funding pressures in third level sector. The Hunt report expected student numbers would increase from 160,000 to 250,000 by 2030. Does this projection still stand? The Hunt report is now at least two years old and it took 18 months to compile, which means it dates from late 2008. Are we still working from the report's projections and assumptions on student numbers and the funding required to ensure our education system is fit for purpose?

Following the Hunt report's publication, a report was commissioned by the HEA and compiled by a panel of international experts. Did the HEA decide to commission it and was the Minister involved? What is the current standing of that report? When it was published, the Minister pooh-poohed it and said it was not in line with policy. Does the report form part of the HEA's current work on planning?

The Minister's comments of last week, which constituted a repetition of comments he made on a number of other occasions, suggest he wants the third level institutions to put their heads together to determine what kinds of efficiencies can be achieved and the additional value that can be obtained using the current spending pot. What value might we be able to obtain from current expenditure? Has the Department or HEA an estimate of what can be gained from improved efficiencies and better structuring? While the delegates cannot give specifics, they should surely have an expectation as to what can be obtained, such that we will know where we stand. Knowing this will help inform our understanding of the challenges that arise in obtaining additional required funding.

How much additional funding will be required? I referred to the €500 million mentioned in the Hunt report. How can the funding issue be addressed? An increase in the student registration fee was announced. Students will have to come up with the cash in the next two to three years. The pressure this causes has been well documented. It causes access issues for particular categories of students.

Although technological universities are being considered, I am particularly concerned about the status of the remaining institutes of technology. We should not allow the creation of a third category of education provision in the higher education sector. Institutes of technology are crucial to the economic development of an area and to attracting industry. The quality of education in the institutes of technology needs to be maintained. What is the status of colleges outside the technological university sector? We must ensure another educational tier is not created.

There is a recruitment ban across the public service. Where will gaps emerge over the next five years, and certainly the next three years, on foot of staff retirements? What difficulties may be created in institutions in regard to maintaining the quality of education in various faculties? What is the plan to address this? Our standing in this regard influences our international ranking. Equally, it informs the quality of courses being provided. We need to ensure the public service recruitment ban is not leading directly to a dilution of the product we are offering to students.

I thank the delegates for attending. I apologise on behalf of Deputy Jonathan O'Brien. He asked me to deputise for him today as he has to attend another meeting.

We certainly agree with any strategy that aims to have a more modern and flexible education system. It is good that the relevant studies have been carried out and that the Government is examining ways to improve education. With regard to the economic and resource-utilisation aspects, approximately 80% of the higher education budget is spent on pay.

I note the pay of university professors in Ireland is much higher in comparison with the rates in Canada or the United States. When one considers the majority of the best universities in the world are in America, it is clear that attainment of high standards in education - or indeed in banking or politics - is not intrinsically linked to high wages. Consequently, I believe the entire subject of high pay within education must be examined. Perhaps there is scope for increasing funding streams for Irish universities because globally, there are several examples in which the alumni of various colleges contribute hugely to their budgets. For instance, there are several examples from the United States in which the alumni provide a fair percentage of the universities' income stream.

Sinn Féin would promote the development of online courses and supports open education, which is extensively used throughout the world. A number of such models operate throughout the world, including in Australia. I am surprised one key point was not mentioned today, which is that on foot of reduced parental income and reduced grants for students attending college, one risks going back to the days when only the very wealthy could afford quality third level education. Perhaps one way to address this risk would be to focus on online courses. While I acknowledge it would cost money, were it to provide better education to a wider audience of students, it would be a very good investment. One of the reports suggested that education should be seen not as a cost but as an investment and I fully subscribe to that view. Has consideration been given to extending the academic year? While I am unsure what is the position globally in this regard, it appears to me as though it should be possible to reduce a four-year course to three years by extending the academic year. I confess there may be good reasons this should not be done but I am not aware of them. If productivity is being examined, the most obvious sign of productivity would be the production of more graduates in a shorter time and overall, the production of more graduates with the requisite skills to work in the present environment.

I refer to the Hunt report and hope I will not be accused of being parochial in this regard. It appears that centralisation automatically is assumed to be a good thing and that it will benefit quality, efficiency and effectiveness. In many cases that is so, but not always. I am thinking of St. Angela's College, Sligo, about which the recommendation was the service should relocate from that college to NUI Galway. First, were that service to leave St. Angela's, it would put in jeopardy the other services offered in that college. Second, it should not be automatically assumed that the service would be improved by relocation. There is tremendous scope for improved co-operation and joint governance without physically transferring and endangering what is an excellent college in Sligo. Consequently, I hope the Higher Education Authority, HEA, and the Department have not closed their minds to the possibility of achieving or perhaps exceeding the same desirable objectives, while leaving the service within St. Angela's College. I seek the witnesses' views on this issue.

Reference was made to the ICT skills project and I note concerns have been expressed in some IT colleges-----

I ask the Deputy to wrap up with this question because we have other members who wish to contribute.

I have only one further question to ask after this one.

I ask the Deputy to be brief.

There is concern in some colleges that funding has not been made available for next year and subsequent years. I seek the witnesses' comments in this regard. Finally, with regard to the designation of institutes of technology as technological universities, this is a good, progressive and exciting phase of work. I work closely with the Institute of Technology Sligo and in many such institutes of technology there is no fear of change. They would welcome such change, as long as they can consistently perceive it will make matters better for the students they serve.

I will revert to each group on those questions because there is a lot of material therein.

Ms Mary Doyle

I will take the points as they were raised. On the important point of demographic projections, there has been a revision of the projections in reference to the figures set out in the Hunt report. Work subsequently was completed with the Department in collaboration with the ESRI and the recently-published ESRI report sets out the revised projections. While the increases are on a smaller scale than those set out in the Hunt report, they still are highly significant. We face a highly significant increase of more than 12% by 2015 or 2016 and of 20% by 2020. Consequently, the scale of the task remains very large. Moreover, as Deputy McConalogue asked in his next question, the question regarding the solutions to the funding of the present system and the estimated additional demand is key to this issue. The Deputy also asked about costings and savings expected and this clearly is an area on which we have been focusing strongly for some time. Most observers would agree there undoubtedly are costings and savings to be got from looking in detail at the existing system and to making sure that all fragmentation of courses and duplication are eliminated. The HEA and the Department are about to enter a formal process to examine where the expenditure that already is in the system lies and to try to think through, in a strategic way, what are the best solutions for the higher education institutions and for the service they provide.

Part of the system of reconfiguration leads me into a third point made by the Deputy pertaining to the future of the institutes of technology, IT, sector. As members are aware, there are two main elements to the higher education sector at present and a real focus and a real contribution is made from the IT sector. In his speech last week, the Minister set out a programme of change for the sector in which he indicated that he envisaged in the first instance that stronger, larger, regionally-based institutions would be the first port of call for the sector and he encouraged the leaders of the institutions to think about what needs to be done to achieve this. The strength of the IT sector in meeting the needs of the local economy, local businesses and local people is immense and must be enhanced, developed and valued in that process. Moreover, the focus on the development of the regional clusters will allow this to happen in a structured way. I believe the Deputy rightly stated this is a sector that must be valued and the contribution of which to the economy and local society is enormous and that this must be safeguarded within the process. The process for designating ITs that make application for technical university status already has been set out and will be implemented in accordance with the strict criteria.

The numbers involved within the higher education section were mentioned. In recent years there has been a significant reduction in staff numbers, while an increased number of students has been catered for. This has been one of the big successes in the sector. There is flexibility for individual institutions to fill posts they require to have filled while staying within the ECF ceiling on numbers and also to retrain those whose skills are no longer required.

Deputy Michael Colreavy raised a number of points. Public service pay is an issue that is being addressed centrally. I understand there is a meeting this afternoon to discuss these issues and that the education sector is part of that process. Discussions on productivity in a number of areas will be held in the coming period.

The Deputy also mentioned the need to take on board the potential of technology to achieve quicker and better education outcomes. We have been thinking about this issue, about which Mr. Boland will say a little more. We agree on the need to use technology and have some interesting examples from around the world. It is important to provide a better education experience and greater access. It needs to be subsumed into the overall process of change in a structured and dynamic way.

The Deputy also asked about the ICT skills project. There is a new call for proposals to start early in 2013. My colleague, Ms Forde, can outline the position in more detail, if the committee so wishes.

The designation of the technical universities is an important issue. A process has been outlined and it will be followed closely by the Department and the HEA in making designations.

Mr. Tom Boland

I hope I can make a coherent contribution to what has been a discussion of a wide-ranging mix of issues. Underlying a number of the questions asked and the points raised was the issue of the sustainability of the system. It arose in comments about alumni and in the context of additional student numbers and likely costs. We now have firm figures for and evidence of the likely demand for higher education places, both from students and also, importantly, employers. There is a clear message coming from the ESRI report which was compiled at the behest of the HEA, that we need every graduate we can get hold of to ensure future demographic growth.

Sometimes, when people talk about sustainability, the default position - it has been my own in the past - is: how do we get more money into the system? This morning I was looking at a website on which it was indicated that Pearsons, an international consultancy group, had published an assessment of the best education systems in the world. Ireland ranks very well in 11th place. The assessment report states:

Throwing money at education by itself rarely produces results. The individual changes to education systems, however sensible, rarely do much on their own. Education requires long-term, coherent and focused system-wide attention to achieve improvement.

That is what the national strategy is about. The strategy and the restructuring of the higher education sector are intimately connected with the sustainability of the sector. There is a temptation for agencies, even the HEA, to make a crude calculation - for example, X number of extra students by Y amount per student equals so many hundred million euro - but it does not really work. As Ms Doyle said, we will be working with the Department in the coming months to try to develop a more sophisticated strategy to ensure the sustainability of the higher education sector. It will deal with issues such as alumni and the use of technology in the sector. Sligo Institute of Technology has been strong in this area.

Underpinning all of this, we need a number of ways by which to reimagine how a higher education is to be provided. The current model, not just in Ireland but also internationally, is increasingly becoming unsustainable. The length of the academic year was mentioned, but it is not just that issue; there is also the way in which the academic programme is structured. There is a big range of issues, long before we come to the question of how much extra the system needs.

The international experts' report was mentioned. I will try to put the issue in context. Creating a coherent system of higher education institutions, interlocking in a co-ordinated way, has never been tried in Ireland and only rarely been tried successfully internationally. In doing this work, therefore, the HEA wanted to receive the best possible advice from as many quarters as possible. We adopted a position of working from bottom-up and top-down in seeking inputs into the process. In the bottom-up approach institutions were asked, with reference to the Hunt report, where they saw their future. In the top-down approach the aim was to engage with some international experts, using the strategy as set out in the Hunt report, and ask how we might reconfigure the sector in the optimal way to create a co-ordinated system. That is exactly what the international panel has done and the input its report will have into the process.

It is a mischaracterisation of the Minister's position to say he pooh-poohed the report. In fairness, last Thursday he endorsed much of its contents. He said mergers of universities were not a policy objective; they have been tried in the past and did not work. From a national policy point of view, that issue is not on the agenda. That is a perfectly reasonable position for the Minister to take. In so far as it deals with specific configurations, the report covers relatively few pages. It also deals with aspects that will be of enormous benefit to us in developing a co-ordinated system. It talks about configuration parameters, general principles and examines international trends in the creation of higher education systems. It also looks at the qualities a co-ordinated higher education system should have. All of this is extremely valuable background material for us in our discussions with the institutions and for the institutions in seeing where they are placed on the landscape.

While specific institutional proposals made by the panel, as being illustrative of an optimal system, are not being considered, 75% of the report is germane to our activities.

Deputy Colreavy pointed out centralisation is not always a good development. He is correct and, in discussions about higher level education, it is often said scale is always better. It is not always better. I accept St. Angela's College is a fine college. The Minister's intention through the teacher education review was to improve the quality of the teacher education system. It set out to see how we can create the best possible teachers. Internationally, it is agreed stand-alone teacher education facilities are not a good idea. Instead, teachers need to be educated in a broad and rich research-informed environment. In an Irish context, that would be in the universities. Accordingly, the inevitable conclusion for an institution such as St. Angela's is that its teacher-education provision should be relocated to Galway university. While I am in no position to make any commitments today, we will meet with St. Angela's, as we will with all of the institutions in question, and listen to their issues and see whether they can point to a better way of doing things.

I welcome the delegations to the committee and thank them for their presentations. In the context of the Croke Park agreement, do the new rosters and time schedules for the third level sector relate to professors and senior lecturers as well? We are all being asked to look at every way we can make a contribution to national recovery. Has the Higher Education Authority, HEA, any savings made or planned in its overall running such as in overtime payments, employment numbers, allowances, staffing schedules, promotions and even office heating costs?

We all agree the Central Applications Office, CAO, is just a bit short of perfect. Has the authority any suggestions as to how we can improve it? One can imagine the stress and concerns people have when logging on to the CAO website only to find their applications are blocked.

I thank the delegations for attending. Focusing in on the ESRI prediction of an increase of 16% in third level numbers by 2020, how does the HEA intend to meet that challenge? Has the authority any comparative figures on the higher demand for university places from international students? Our seven universities are in the top 500 in the world. It is often suggested each individual university is fighting its own corner rather than collaborating together. If Harvard and various other universities in the United States can collaborate, why can more of our own not do the same?

Has the HEA concerns about standards in distance and online learning? There is a concern within the third level sector that we are churning out a large number of trainee teachers who are swamping the system but there are no posts for them. Is there a danger this might also happen with the roll-out of online learning? How can we maintain a standard and proper inspection system around that?

There is an obsession with league tables and The Irish Times recently had an article about which schools are more successful, allegedly, than others. The number of clarifications and corrections subsequently printed by the newspaper since that article has been alarming, with many schools bending over backwards to inform The Irish Times about what really happens in their own individual schools. Do we leave access initiatives to individual colleges? Has the Department and the HEA a centralised approach as to how we can encourage those from more disadvantaged backgrounds to enter access programmes? Is it recognised that some schools find it more difficult than others in this area and that in some schools to get a student through the leaving certificate is a greater achievement than getting a doctorate? Is there a centralised policy with access or is it left to the individual colleges and the goodness of their own hearts?

I thank the delegations for their presentations. I accept savings have to be squeezed out across the year rather than the academic year. I would not necessarily agree with squeezing courses to make them shorter, however. There is significant potential in that third level teaching buildings are empty for up to half of the year and we could be running two terms within a year. Is there an actual figure on the efficiencies that could be achieved through consolidation and collaboration of universities?

I agree with the points already made on the potential of online education. It is important there are proper contact hours with students, along with tutorials, however. There is as much interaction in taking a lecture on a computer screen in one's living room as there is in a lecture hall, particularly in large group lectures such as in arts but the engagement part of the learning process provided by tutorials is still necessary. Some institutions have done good work in this area and some are miles ahead in it. Dublin City University, DCU, has been a pioneer in this area for a long time. However, it is very disparate across the sector. Does the HEA have an overall strategy for online learning? It has significant potential and instead of leaving it to individual institutions much more work must be done realising this potential.

Deputy Ó Ríordáin rightly pointed out that league tables do not capture issues such as access and the effort put into such programmes by third level institutions. They also do not capture the quality of teaching or learning as these tables are very much skewed by research and publications figures. To what extent is the HEA monitoring teaching quality and the impact the cuts over the past several years have had on it? Certainly, the indications from the institutions is that the interactive parts of education such as tutorials and lab sessions are being cut back.

I note from the presentation that the university presidents will come back on recommendations on entry into third level by the end of the year. When we had them before the committee, it was obvious there were different views on it and some were a lot less keen on it than others.

How does Ms Doyle see that working? Will it be up to each individual institution to decide or will there be a sectoral position on it? People will be reluctant to jump away from the points system. Will that work across a sectoral base or merely for individual colleges?

Has an assessment been conducted on the impact of the removal of postgraduate grants from an access point of view? During the summer the indications were that applications were down for many postgraduate courses. Has the Department conducted an analysis of the longer-term impact on access to postgraduate education, not only from an educational point view but, as I raised previously when the Minister was present, from the point of view of the economic cost, in a broader sense, of not having graduates trained with the skills we will need when the economy turns around?

Before we return to Ms Doyle, I also have a couple of questions.

On the cost of third-level education, does the Department or the HEA have any figures on how our costs compare with those of other countries? Obviously, there are other countries that manage to run a free third-level education system, including Finland and other Scandinavian countries which have similar populations to Ireland's. How do their costs compare to ours?

I note that the HEA publishes a report every six years on who goes to college. There was one due out this year with the latest figures but I understand it will not be published until next year. There was a story in The Irish Times that I did not read properly and I meant to go back and check, but I think it stated that 40% of students from disadvantaged backgrounds - or perhaps it was disadvantaged schools - go on to third level. If that is true, it is a significant improvement on previous years. I wonder whether the Department or the HEA has any figures on that. That relates to the access issue.

On the issue of the use of buildings raised by Senator Power, some universities in particular do not maximise their use, traditionally closing their colleges at the weekend. There are also colleges that are open morning, afternoon, evening and at the weekend, with all sorts of flexibility. Institutes of technology are particularly flexible in their delivery of education. What pressure is the HEA and the Department putting on colleges to use their buildings more?

On an issue raised by Deputy Colreavy and others, the idea of rationalising the education system might make sense but local facilities encourage people to attend college. Will such facilities remain part of the future education system? Are there any plans for outreach centres in terms of the future of higher education?

Ms Mary Doyle

It is a broad canvas and we might share some of the responses. One key theme emerging from all of the questions is that of increased numbers and reduced funding. If we take a minute to reflect on what has happened over the past couple of years, we will see there has been a significant reduction in the funding envelope for higher education and a significant increase in numbers attending colleges. There has been quite an improvement in productivity but the reality is that it will not be enough. Given the twin pressures of reduced funding and increased demand, more must be done to close the gap. As Mr. Boland stated, we are putting in place a systemic review of issues relating to sustainability in this area, which will give us a basis on which to move forward. That, if you like, is a third leg of the reform programme as we have it. Much work has been done in this area but more needs to be done. We need to focus in particular on the key question: how do we ensure that the likely funding reduction from the Exchequer, coupled with demand, can be met without compromising quality? It is a big question. It is a big issue on which we must make decisions.

There are a number of measures that can be taken with fairly immediate effect, such as examining duplication of courses and whether courses could be provided more sensibly and more efficiently in particular locations.

There are important issues with regard to shared services. It is not a magic bullet but we think there is significant potential within the higher education sector that has not been tapped. We are looking at areas such as HR, finance and IT to try to do not only more with less but better with less. There is a strong agenda in that regard.

Another element of what needs to be brought into play here, which is a theme that has emerged, relates to transparency issues: how much funding is being spent, where it is going and what we are getting for it. At the heart of the work on sustainability that we are undertaking is to be able to demonstrate to everybody what funding is going into the system and what the performance and output will be, because those are the issues on which we must focus. Allied to that, there were issues with regard to staff productivity. In a moment, I will ask Mr. Phillip Crosby, my colleague who works on the industrial relations side, to make a contribution on that. Before I finish, however, there were a number of other issues on which I wish to comment.

Another major theme that has emerged from the discussion this afternoon is the question of quality. That is an issue of concern to everybody in this room. It is essential. One of Ireland's achievements has been to protect the quality of the output from higher education. Mr. Boland might say a word about that. Obviously, we have our national framework of qualifications and we have the new organisation Quality and Qualifications Ireland, QQI, which has a role in that area. The HEA and QQI have a close relationship on that shared agenda.

Another theme that emerged strongly from the discussion relates to access. A number of members asked about the arrangements for access. This is another big theme within the higher education landscape. As the committee will be aware, there are a number of dedicated programmes, including higher education access route, HEAR, and disability access route to education, DARE, for special admissions, and there are a number of criteria in place, including attendance at DEIS schools. That is one string to the bow. We have a national access plan in which a range of measures is pursued in conjunction with a dedicated office set up in the HEA on improving access to universities and institutes of technology, and there is a vibrant dialogue going on in that context. There will be a review of the national access plan in 2013, which will be carried out by the HEA. That will give us more information on which to assess policy.

There is a premium for access activities built into the HEA funding model. There is quite a series of pieces in the overall arrangements. This morning I was looking at the ESRI report which was published recently. It continues to signal that there are significant problems with access, but they are problems which go into a range of other issues. There is a need to take that report, think about the issues it raises and see what the implications are for Government and society, and that is what we propose to do.

My final remarks are on the transition agenda, which, as the Chairman stated, is a complex agenda. The Secretary General of the Department is chairing a group.

A broad range of organisations are represented on it, including the State Examinations Commission, the NCCA, the universities association, IOTI, the Department - I am sure I have left somebody out - and their specialist advisers. This is a complex landscape and we want to make progress with the understanding that action is required from a range of organisations. We intend to have a report completed for the Minister shortly on an integrated programme of actions that will see a stronger focus on the transition from second to third level. I will ask my colleague, Mr. Phillip Crosby, to comment on industrial relations aspects.

Mr. Phillip Crosby

Further to Ms Doyle's point on savings, recurrent funding for institutes supported through the HEA decreased from €1.318 billion in 2009 to €1.118 billion in 2012, representing savings of €200 million, or 15%. These savings have emerged from the budgetary situation in which we find ourselves but they are supported by activity on both pay and non-pay aspects of the industrial relations front in the institutions concerned. In the period covered by the Croke Park agreement, the student-staff ratio in the higher education sector increased by 18%, which represents a significant productivity gain. A number of measures in the Croke Park agreement and other sectoral agreements in the higher education sector pursuant to the agreement supported these savings. One such measure was the provision of an additional hour of working time by academic staff in the universities, which has delivered in the order of 100,000 additional hours annually. Increased flexibility in the deliver of working hours in the institutes of technology in the 2011-12 academic year put an additional 150,000 lecturing hours into the institutes. This equates to the negotiation and implementation of approximately 250,000 additional lecturing hours between the two sectors under the Croke Park agreement.

Union co-operation has been required for introducing ongoing change in other areas. Significant savings have been made on the non-pay side. Ms Doyle referred to shared services but the main developments up to now have been in shared procurement, with initiatives such as the Shannon consortium involving multiple institutions producing significant savings in energy, laboratory gases and supplies, advertising, purchasing of journals and literature, office equipment and waste management.

I will be slightly more circumspect in regard to planned savings but we continue to face a difficult budgetary position and significant savings will be sought from the unions across the public sector generally. A process of engagement between Government and the unions will get under way today and we will see where that process goes on coming weeks.

Does the additional contribution to the rostering and rescheduling system apply to senior professors and lecturers in the same way as to other teaching staff?

Mr. Phillip Crosby

My understanding, based on the information supplied by the institutions, is that it applies to all grades. However, the reports I receive on implementation do not cover specific posts and grades.

Mr. Tom Boland

The Chair raised the issue of local facilities. One of the major reasons for the success of Ireland's higher education system is the way in which students have relatively easy access to education on a regional basis. The institutions of technology in particular have played a major role in this regard. One of the major objectives of the national strategy in the context of creating regional clusters of institutions is to maintain that comprehensive range of provision locally. There will be always be areas in which consolidation is appropriate. For example, it is not possible to have a veterinary school in every part of the country. Apart from these areas, however, a comprehensive range of provisions is important in terms of regional development and, more important, student access. Transport has improved considerably in recent years but cost issues arise nevertheless.

I must express my interest in the CAO, as a member of its board. I agree that it is an excellent organisation. If I was not appearing before this committee I would be attending a meeting of the board of the CAO to discuss a new strategic direction with the objective of leveraging its past success to support the higher education sector in other ways. The CAO is mindful of the need to take a strategic view of its future.

Closer collaboration among universities and institutes is a sine qua non of the current reform process. Sometimes the discussions of reform of structures of higher education leave one with the sense that things will be done to the institutes of technology while the universities blithely go their merry way but that is unlikely to happen. In fairness, there are good examples of collaboration in university research, including in particular the programme for research in third level institutions which is managed by the HEA on behalf of the Department of Education and Skills. Collaboration can and does work but we need to see it happening on a wider basis than research, such as in undergraduate areas.

Ms Doyle addressed some of the issues in respect of quality monitoring by the HEA. We are all wasting our time if we do not achieve quality outcomes from the higher education sector. Quality is at the top of everybody's agenda. The HEA has a key concern with quality but it plays an indirect role in quality assurance.

Quality in the first instance has to be the responsibility of the institutions; otherwise, all it becomes is a box-ticking exercise. The institutions have to be concerned with the quality of what they are providing for their students. QQI, which has been established, has had a major role as a national agency in this space and a key success factor for the future system of higher education we are trying to build is the relationship that will be created between the agency and the HEA. We have to work hand in glove with the agency, particularly because we have the funding instrument that can drive the recommendations QQI can make on quality. Those two things need to work well and I expect that in our strategic dialogue with the institutions and in making decisions on funding for performance, quality and proven quality, outcomes will be central.

On the specific initiative, as Ms Doyle mentioned, as well as making a broad-ranging policy statement to the higher education sector last Thursday, the Minister also launched the national forum for teaching and learning, which is being managed through the HEA. It arose out of considerable funding made via the authority through the strategic innovation fund recently to enhance the quality of teaching and learning in the higher education sector. We are creating a forum in which the wide range of good practice across the sector can be brought together in a single place and strongly influence high-quality outcomes for students in teaching and learning.

Senator Power asked for figures on postgraduates. It is early and we do not have them yet. Some may not register until later in the year. We can keep her informed when we get the figures.

Mr. Costello will comment further on the access issue.

Mr. Fergal Costello

To add to the comments Ms Doyle made, one of the things we have been driving for a number of years is a national policy with targets. We must thank Professor Pat Clancy in UCD, who has done extensive research. Over the past 20 years he has tracked for the HEA the participation rates of different socioeconomic groups, and there has been an increase. The Chairman mentioned 14% and that is not far off the average for a number of the lower groups. There are still disparities. There has been significant progress but this is still a long way below the average for participation as a whole. We therefore have a national drive to push institutions. With our own data, we will be able to look for them to build on their strengths. Some are at high levels and can do more given their region or focus and others are lower. There is a national dimension as well as the institutions pushing locally.

Is it possible to get those figures?

Mr. Fergal Costello

Sure. We can provide them.

I refer to the future funding projections for the third level sector and the savings that may be achievable through value for money initiatives. We have not been given specific figures. Mr. Boland said it was difficult to assess this in the way people can in other sectors but, at the same time, the Hunt report, which was commissioned three or four years ago, identified funding needs. For a number of years, there has been much deliberation about what would required for the future of third level funding. If we had asked this question four years ago, we would have been told that the sector was difficult and that the Government had set up the Hunt group to do this work. However, the Hunt report has been in the system for two years. It outlined specific figures, yet we still are not even considering ballpark figures for how much will be required through Exchequer and other funding or what savings will be made through the value for money exercise in which third level institutions have been asked to engage. No matter what part of the public sector we discuss with the budget coming up and the Estimates process in train, a key part of undertaking a job is to identify the target. It might not be achievable but, at the same time, in undertaking it, I would expect a ballpark figure for what is required or what is feasible. I ask again for figures on what might be achievable in extracting additional value from third level institutions doing the work better. Does Mr. Boland have ballpark figures for the additional funding that may be required in future years in the third level sector? Ms Doyle mentioned increased productivity in the sector as a result of reduced funding of €200 million and more students coming into the sector. That is happening across all sectors. If every Department could work its own version of the miracle of the loaves and fishes there would be increased productivity, but perhaps there are fewer loaves and fishes and more people eating. This would mean more students leaving the system with a poor-quality education. Productivity does not necessarily mean improved outcomes.

Am I correct that the Minister would not allow the international report to be published? He mentioned at the time that he felt aspects of the report were not feasible or desirable, while Mr. Boland said that two thirds of the report forms the basis of the way the authority expects to go forward. Many in the IT sector feel they did not have an opportunity to engage with the international report, while many aspects of the report ran contrary to previously agreed national policy. Will he comment on that?

With regard to the issue of transparency in colleges, the HEA has statistics on its website about the number of people in college but it does not go into how many per year or how many per course and so on. One of the recommendations of the points commission is that colleges should publish the number of places they offer on each course. There is a significant lack of transparency about the number of places offered on particular courses and why. That affects the points for courses. Do the HEA and the Department have proposals to address that issue?

I used to work in the registrations office of the Dublin Institute of Technology at Bolton Street. The education of apprentices was a significant element of its remit. Is that part of the picture or is it separate from higher education? An apprentice in Bolton Street could move on to a diploma, degree or postgraduate qualification. Is that part of the vision?

Mr. Tom Boland

Neither the HEA nor the Department wants to prevaricate on this issue of likely costs, but it is complex. Deputy McConalogue is trying to take us ahead of where we are. As an indicator, the recent ESRI report says that based on our models, we estimate total enrolments in 2020 and 2030 will be 168,000 and 195,000, respectively. These figures imply an increase in nominal recurrent funding to €1.4 billion in 2020 and €1.63 billion in 2030.

Those are some figures. However, importantly, one of the key objectives of the sustainability work we are doing and which we will complete in a few months is the element of that additional funding can be found from improved productivity with existing resources. We are seeking to analyse the demand for higher education, analyse the current financing, review the resource allocation models, identify where, if anywhere, additional resources are needed and then make some policy proposals to the Minister. The work is very much in progress. Those figures can be taken as being indicative but no more than that at this stage.

I appreciate the Deputy's point on the international panel report. It is not true to say the Minister would not allow it to be published. To be totally honest, as I must be with the committee, we had intended to publish the report three or four weeks earlier than it was published. The Department asked us to pause that publication in order to allow for a clear understanding of where national policy was on some of the issues addressed in the report. A crucial policy issue was that the international panel strongly supported the objective of the Hunt report in terms of the binary system and the need to retain the missions of both sectors of the binary system. It took the view that another way to do that would be to create what were described as comprehensive regional universities. Ultimately that is not consistent with the Hunt report and the Minister took the view that it was not national policy and therefore was not going to be pursued. The issues only arose in that particular context - to do with specific configurations. There was no sense of the Minister not allowing the publication of the report. It was a question of getting the process right so that it did not create unnecessary instability in the system, for want of a better word.

I ask Mr. Costello to comment on the other issues.

Mr. Fergal Costello

In terms of transparency, the HEA has considerable data. We get returns from the institutions in respect of each of the 1,000 or 1,100 courses with details of the number of students in first, second, third and fourth year. We do not publish them because we would just overwhelm people with information. If there are any particular queries we would be happy to follow up on them.

Apprenticeship education is funded almost exclusively through the HEA in institutes of technology with two further education colleges. A very positive aspect is that the progression issue the Chairman mentioned, has got better. There was a time when it was difficult to progress from an apprenticeship qualification into a higher education qualification. While I do not say it is perfect now by any means, we did some work on it last year and a variety of routes and institutions are offering recognition of prior learning and bringing students into second or third year of a higher education qualification. We would hope that sort of seamless progression between sectors would become stronger in years to come.

Does the HEA class apprenticeship as part of the higher education system?

Mr. Fergal Costello

We do, in the sense that we fund institutes of technology which provide the bulk of apprenticeship education. In terms of the qualifications framework, I believe it is called a level 6 further education qualification and that is under review by the qualification authority. From our point of view as a funding agent it is in there with everything else.

I have a final question and had I thought of it earlier I would have done some preparation for it. I do not know how much taxpayers' money is spent on external consultancy work by national and local government, and State agencies. I suspect some academic departments have people with the skill and knowledge to do much of that consultancy work. Would the HEA tender for that type of consultancy work? Would it welcome requests for tenders for such consultancy work? Could that form part of the funding stream for the higher education institutions?

Mr. Tom Boland

I do not have the figures either. Certainly I know that many academics do consultancies of various kinds for private and public bodies. In the case of some of the senior academics there is scope in their contracts for them to carry out that type of work. I do not know and I am not sure I would even be able to find out the scale of it. When the HEA is seeking advice on issues we are obviously very happy to engage with people in the sector or recently departed from the sector. I will give two good examples. Professor Áine Hyland did a background paper on the teacher education review. Mr. Jim Devine, the former president of the Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art and Design, did a background paper for the creative arts review in Dublin. So we use the expertise in the sector as much as we can.

As a general principle, if taxpayers' money is to be spent on consultancy, there should be a return on the taxpayers' money that has been invested in higher education and that an element should feed the income stream for higher education.

Mr. Tom Boland

That is not a bad principle so long as the expertise obviously matches the consultancy needed.

The knowledge and skills are there.

Mr. Tom Boland

As a principle, one could not argue against it.

Before I call Mary Doyle, I will allow Deputy McConalogue to come back in.

I thank Mr. Boland for the ballpark figures on future funding. Ms Doyle gave the projected future student numbers, which are forecast to be 168,000 by 2020 and 195,000 by 2030, which are up from 160,000. We currently spend approximately €1.1 billion on third level education and the HEA suggests that it may take approximately €1.4 billion by 2020 and €1.6 billion by 2030, which is before inflation is taken into account. The Hunt report mentioned a figure of €500 million per annum for ten years. That means the State's input would go from €1.1 billion to €1.6 billion, which is €500 million over 18 years. The Hunt report referred to €500 million per year for each year over ten years, which would be €5 billion over ten years. Is the Hunt report also referring to private funding coming from outside?

Mr. Tom Boland

It basically relates to the estimates for participation. I ask Mr. Costello to respond as he has a better handle on the figures.

Mr. Fergal Costello

I am not sure what figures the Deputy has. The Hunt report suggested going from €1.3 billion two or three years ago to €1.8 billion by 2020 and €2.25 by 2030. That was in respect of recurrent and there may have been capital in addition. The figures Mr. Boland has just quoted are considerably less than that, going to €1.4 billion and then €1.6 billion in 2030. One of the big differences is the changed demographic projections that have already been explained. It follows from that that as the projections change the expected costings change.

The other point to make is that this is a costing. Public and private pay for higher education so there is not an assumption that the Exchequer has to meet all this. As Deputy Colreavy said, consultancy and other sources of income have to play a part in the mix.

Third level grants are administered through SUSI. Does the HEA pay them? No, it is the Department. While the witnesses might not have the figure today, in terms of the 2012 Estimate, how much funding is built in or left to cover grants for this year? I imagine that at the outset of the year it was probably all built in to be paid in the calendar year 2012. In the event, it is likely that many grants will not be paid until 2013. How does that work with the Estimates for 2013? Will that be lifted from 2013 and added on to the 2013 figure or does it mean there is a bigger squeeze on the Department of Education and Skills next year as a result?

Ms Mary Doyle

I have a number of comments to make on those issues. It is clear that we have been grappling and continue to do so with the issue raised by Deputy McConalogue, namely, how we get the funding and demand in sync. As we move forward into the reconfiguration, we see that we need to match up and connect what happens in things like configuration, shared services, consolidation and eliminating duplication. We see there is potential in all of those areas to achieve greater efficiencies and effectiveness in the system. We are also acutely aware of the difficult public financial situation which will continue for some years.

There are two main prongs to what we will be doing over the next while. The first, as we have discussed this afternoon, will be the issues of reconfiguration and how that helps us to revitalise and renew the system. A systematic review of the financial sustainability of the system must be connected to that in a very structured way. Part of the work we must do over the next few weeks and months is to put in place systems relating to both those pieces of work and how we join them up. At this point, it is fair to say that unlike the situation that pertained when the Hunt deliberations were ongoing, we know there is a very finite financial envelope so we must try within that reality to think about the best value we can get from the public expenditure and how we support the institutions in the really important work they do in raising money privately.

There are a number of other streams, including the research stream which could and undoubtedly will be of significant potential. The question of international students is another strand. What we must do in the coming weeks and months is look at all of those opportunities and gather them together in an integrated way which helps us get to a point where the system is sustainable in its new configuration in light of the opportunities that technology and other forms of provision of education open up to us and where we are confident that we can ensure the quality of the education outcomes. That is the challenge we face. Over the next while, we will be moving on that agenda substantially.

There are a number of important elements to help us to do that. The first is the performance dialogue that the HEA will enter into with the individual institutions over the next while in respect of their expenditure and the outcomes and role of the HEA in regulating the sector. The HEA's role will change in this context and this will be another piece of the jigsaw. Undoubtedly, we must bring more transparency to the system both in terms of managing the academic workload and reporting on academic performance. When one puts those things together, that is the agenda for the next while. A question was raised about whether there is a connection to further education and the answer is "Yes". There is a landscape there which provides resources for people post leaving certificate. A big job of work is ongoing in the further education sector which will take a lot of time to design and put in place but ultimately there will be a closer connection between higher and further education.

In conclusion, what the Minister and the Department have been trying to do in this process is to bring the maximum amount of clarity to the process, namely, what the objectives for the system are and what the steps in achieving them will be and also to ensure that the process the Government has adopted in the Hunt report is not derailed and that the institutions in particular are clear about the Government's intent in this area and the steps the Government is putting in place to implement this ambitious programme of change.

That concludes the meeting. I thank our guests for their presentations and for answering the questions, and the members for their contribution. We will meet next week with the third level institutions so the meeting today will very much inform our meeting next week.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.05 p.m. until 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 December 2012.
Top
Share