I move:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to put an end to the scandal of the two tier education system in Ireland brought about by the inequality within higher and further education and training; and demands a fair and equitable grant system to facilitate this.
I welcome the Minister to this beautifully refurbished House and I hope we will have a stimulating debate. Nobody could disagree that the education system must play a more effective role in breaking the cycle of inequality and deprivation which still exists in Ireland, despite the enormous economic advances.
In theory, the primary and second level sectors in education prepare young entrants for third level education. We know that at every stage of the education system young people fall away from the path of achievement because of poverty and deprivation. It is a scandal that so many young people can be deprived of an education which would help improve their quality of life. This is partly due to their parents' inability to meet the very real costs of ongoing education. We know – it is repeated like a mantra in society – that educational disadvantage lies at the heart of poverty and marginalisation. We also know that when other societies talked about improvements in the socio-economic realm the mantra was "education, education, education".
Fine Gael is determined that every young person should have equal access to all stages of the educational process and that every school leaver should have an equal chance of receiving an effective third level education. This is not the case at present. We cannot talk about third level in isolation. I support high quality pre-school education because early intervention is essential. Early remedial intervention is also required, in addition to sufficient resources for primary schools to provide an adequate system and to ensure that disadvantaged children do not fall between the cracks.
At second level Fine Gael has identified coherent policies which underline the partnership approach to embrace all those within the education system and the wider community. Tackling educational disadvantage is a priority and we have called for existing policies to be tested for their effectiveness and to ensure that the successes we identify can be built upon. One of the policies set out by Fine Gael is the establishment of an education development authority to support teacher training, new methods and new policies in school. We have pointed to the fact that over 30 State agencies provide support and advice to small businesses, their managers and staff, yet no State agency provides support and advice for schools.
According to the USI policy paper on student financial support, students from poorer backgrounds "are still grossly underrepresented in third level education". We all know this is true. Participation at third level by pupils from disadvantaged family backgrounds is chronically low. We have identified key policy initiatives which will help to combat this. The first is the development of a coherent alternative entry system for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who have not come through the leaving certificate points race. This would include a quota of places and a coherent accreditation system for establishing that eligibility. All third level colleges should be required to develop strategies for the successful attainment of targets in terms of the intake of pupils through this system and to integrate the students into college. Back-up services must be available for them.
Third level colleges should form relationships with particular designated disadvantaged schools to ease the transition to college and provide an orientation programme to help students adapt to third level. Each year the cost of accommodation and other elements should be assessed to decide the structural amount of maintenance grants payable. Many of us who operate at county council and local government level know that timing is an important aspect of the provision of grants. We are too familiar with cases of hardship where the up front costs of students cannot be met because they have not received the grants on time. This has been alleviated to an extent, but it is still a problem.
The lack of adequate financial support has been identified as one of the most fundamental barriers for students from less socially advantaged backgrounds. Proof of this is the most recent figures which show that groups that have traditionally the lowest participation in higher education, that is, the children of other so called manual and non-manual workers, have had the lowest increase in participation in higher education. Although there have been increases in participation at higher level, the rate of increase for those less advantaged groups is far less than what is acceptable.
The Minister has a great grasp of detail and he will know that income limits for grants are judged on the basis of joint parental income, regardless of whether students are financially dependent on their parents. The limits are far too low, particularly in view of the real value of the grant. Figures provided following a Union of Students in Ireland survey on the cost of attending college show that rent amounts to 41% of the total monthly budget of a student living away from home in the Dublin area. Maintenance grant increases from 1997 to 2000, inclusive, amounted to 9%, while the rent increases amounted to a whopping 94%. What does this mean for students who make it to college and try to survive on a grants system which provides a measly £49 per week? They must take up part-time work to ease the financial burden. This pressure can result in much higher non-completion rates for these students. In other words, those who find it most difficult to get to college are then faced with even more barriers to the successful completion of their courses. This is perpetuating a cycle which must be broken.
A report based on a research project emanating from the Educational Research Centre in Drumcondra in August 2000 was cited in the Irish Independent. This suggested that within institutes of technology, the non-completion rate was on average 40% for students who began their courses in 1995. For example, of 11,175 students who enrolled in 11 institutes of technology in the academic year 1995-96, 42.61% did not finish their courses. The vast majority either dropped out in first year or failed. In engineering and computing courses, half the students did not complete their courses.
According to the Union of Students in Ireland, finances are a key cause of these non-completion rates. However, there are other issues. A survey carried out by the head of counselling services at the Dublin Institute of Technology followed the progress of 262 degree students during their first two years in college – not a happy experience for some of the students. Some 40 of them experienced some level of distress by the second year, ten were at risk of becoming severely distressed, dropping out or even at risk of committing suicide, 30 had left college and the non-completion rate over the two years was 11.5%.
The most vulnerable were not necessarily students who struggled academically. The major factors were age, which I found interesting. It seems the older we get, the harder it is to change our spots. Mature students found it more difficult than younger students to adapt to student life. The second major factor was finance. Students with little or no financial support from home were also at risk. There were other issues such as unstable family backgrounds and first generation students, that is, students from families without a tradition of post-compulsory education. If one aligns that to those who are financially strapped, one can see the great problems that arise.
In 1999 a study in Carlow, Dundalk and Tralee Institutes of Technology also found that finance was a central cause of non-completion of courses. Lack of finance also deterred students from accepting college places in the first place. Presumably this also deters others from attempting to secure a college place. In 1999, the Higher Education Authority published a report by Professor Pat Clancy based on a postal survey of over 11,000 students who turned down the offer of a college place from the CAO. The report showed that one in ten applicants rejected an offer because of concern about the financial cost of going to college.
In comparison to the rest of Europe, Ireland is one of only six countries who give support solely to the students and, of those six, we have the lowest level of support. We have the worst system of student financial support in Europe. Grants need to be realistic, covering the basic cost of living for the students. It is not right that access to university, in particular, is still so heavily weighted in favour of the relatively well off. We do not need any more pilot schemes. We must insist that the proportion of young people going on to third level education is the same regardless of their background.
Proposals from the Union of Students in Ireland are that grants should be increased immediately in line with social welfare levels to cover basic costs. I am aware their proposals would double the cost of student support schemes which amount to more than £80 million. I am aware also that the Minister is on record as saying he would favour increasing the level of grants if resources became available. I would urge him to honour that promise, as resources are available, by providing realistic increases in grants. A very good argument has been made by the USI who say this would represent real value for money. They say that if 33% of first year students in the IT sector alone are not completing their courses, this represents a loss to the taxpayer of almost £25 million. Increasing the grants substantially would help to realise the potential of our invest ment, including savings at PLC and university level.
I ask the Minister to take cognisance of these points and realise that we cannot perpetuate disadvantage. We must use every means to ensure we have a fair, just and equitable society. Education is one of the key means to ensure this.