JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE díospóireacht -
Thursday, 27 Feb 2003

Vol. 1 No. 6

Third Level Education: Presentations.

Chairman

The subject of the presentations by representatives of the Department of Education and Science and the Higher Education Authority is the access programme. Submissions will make particular reference to developments since the May 2001 report of the action group on access to third level education and provisions and programmes for talented youths. Attending from the Department of Education and Science are Assistant Secretary, Paddy McDonagh, assistant principal, John Moloney and Muiris O'Connor, statistician. With us from the Higher Education Authority are Dr. Don Thornhill, Ms Mary Kerr and Mr. Fergal Costello. They are all welcome to the committee to which they have come to make their presentations and to respond to members' questions.

Members have absolute privilege, but persons appearing before the committee do not. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the House, or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We will begin with short presentations from Mr. McDonagh and Dr. Thornhill. There will be a vote in the Dáil at 1 p.m. and it is not proposed to reconvene thereafter.

Mr. Paddy McDonagh

I presume the document I have brought to the committee has been circulated to members. The first graphic on the document indicates the increase from 40,000 to 123,000 in third level educational participation between 1980 to 2001. The second graphic demonstrates the socio-economic representation at third level over the same period based on reports by Dr. Pat Clancy. Lower socio-economic groups tend to be underrepresented while, at the upper end, higher professionals tend to have almost 100% representation. The third graphic shows the change over the four reports by Dr. Clancy in the proportional representation of groups. The periods covered were 1980-86, 1986-92 and 1992-98. The representation of lower professional and salaried employee groups declined between 1986 and 1992, but rose in the subsequent period.

Other relevant findings from national surveys of access to higher education indicate differential participation by sector and field of study. According to Clancy 2001, an important finding of the previous national surveys was that selectivity in overall levels of participation in higher education was complemented by further selectivity by sector and field of study. The study he undertook replicated the finding that the more prestigious the sector and field of study, the greater the social inequality in participation. One will find greater representation of lower socio-economic groups in the institutes of the technology than in the universities and one will find a high rate of participation by higher socio-economic groups in medicine, dentistry, law, pharmacy, architecture and veterinary medicine. The surveys also reveal disparities in participation by geographical area. Connacht and west Munster have the highest levels of participation in third level education and the east, midlands and south-east have the poorest. Dublin records the lowest levels of participation, but within the area the proportion receiving higher education ranges from 77% in Foxrock and Glencullen to less than 10% in Ballyfermot, Chapelizod, Darndale, Priorswood and the north inner city.

It is useful to look at graduation rates because access should mean a student has the opportunity to successfully complete a course of study. In terms of certificate and diploma graduation rates, we are above the OECD average for 2000, which is also the case in respect of degree and masters programmes. We are below average in terms of PhDs, but this should be corrected by the significant investment in research which we have been making since 1988. Dedicated budgets have been made available by the Department of Education and Science and by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment through Science Foundation Ireland. In 1997 the first dedicated research funding from the education budget for research was of the order of £5 million. This year we will spend nearly €50 million on third level research through dedicated funding. Prior to 1997, the 10% to 20% of the Higher Education Authority block grant which funded lecturer time spent on research was regarded as research funding.

Another graphic in the documentation before the committee is intended to indicate the projected scenario over the next number of years. It refers to the ten-year period from 1995-96 to 2006-07 and reveals that the numbers attending second level, including VPT and PLC courses, will have gone from a high of 370,000 to 320,000 by its end. When institutions were grappling with increasing numbers over the last 15 to 20 years, it was difficult to target particular groups. The decline in numbers presents us with an opportunity to do so and the challenge will be to succeed in extending third level opportunities to disabled and disadvantaged people. Just over 59,000 school leavers sat the leaving certificate in 1998, but by 2002 this figure had fallen to 50,000 and we anticipate that the number of school-based candidates sitting the exam could drop to a figure as low as 44,000 by 2007.

The next graphic I bring to the attention of the committee indicates direct Department of Education and Science funding of third level access measures. The figure rose from approximately €300,000 in 1994 to an outturn of €24 million last year, while this year's provision is €26 million. The national development plan made a provision of €121 million for an access fund over the period of the plan. The intention was to promote the participation of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, mature second chance students and students with disabilities.

In September 2000 the action group on access to third level was established to advise on the development of a co-ordinated framework to promote access by students from the three target groups. The group presented its report in July 2001. Its 78 recommendations covered the setting up of a national office for equity of access to higher education, the distribution of funding over the period 2000-06, setting targets for participation, the prioritising of reforms of student support and interventions deemed necessary at pre-school, first and second level. There were also a number of recommendations specific to disadvantaged students, students with disability and mature students.

The main recommendations implemented to date relate to the special rates of maintenance grant, otherwise known as top-up grants, the millennium partnership fund for disadvantage and the national office for equity of access to higher education. We introduced the top-up grants with effect from the 2000-01 academic year. The target groups were child dependants of those on long-term social welfare payments and mature students with social welfare linkage. The initial aim was to target 7,000 people. However, the initial take-up proved to be low. When we reviewed the grants, we found the reasons for this to be that the income threshold, at slightly more than €8,300 was excessively low and the conditions were too complex.

Some 2,570 people received the top-up grant in its first year. The figure for the following year was 3,321. We carried out a review in 2002 which resulted in an increase in the income threshold to €12,419, an increase in the amount of the top-up grant and a streamlining and easing of the conditions. For the academic year 2002-03, the top-up has been increased to €4,000 for students residing more than 15 miles from college. This represents a top-up of nearly €1,500 on the basic maintenance grant. For students residing within 15 miles of college, it represents a top-up of about €596. The total top-up grant for those students is €1,600, with the top-up element amounting to €597. Expenditure on the grant in 2001 was €3.8 million, rising to €9.2 million in 2002.

In September 2000 we also announced the creation of the millennium partnership fund for disadvantage. The guidelines for implementation are contained in the report of the action group on access. The aim is to assist partnerships and community groups to develop support for disadvantaged students. The fund is administered by Area Development Management Limited. In 2001 we allocated €1.2 million and 37 partnership and community groups availed of the funding. In 2002 the allocation was €2 million with 50 applications from groups, all of which received funding.

A key recommendation of the McNamara report was the establishment of a national office for equity of access to higher education. The idea behind the proposal was to have a single co-ordinating body essential to realise the framework of actions needed to realise equity of access. The office is being established within the Higher Education Authority. Its key functions will be to facilitate access, advise on policy development, allocate funds and develop and monitor targets. In the course of its presentation, the Higher Education Authority will elaborate on this matter.

Under the access funding arrangements, we also have a student assistance fund. This is a discretionary fund we provide to third level institutions. It provides financial support for disadvantaged students and is managed by the institutions in a sensitive manner. It assists students who, because of hardship, might be unable to continue their third level studies. The fund provision increased from some €2.5 million in 2000 to nearly €9 million last year.

In addition, there is the fund for students with disabilities which provides funding towards the cost of services and the purchase of equipment. The disabilities covered include physically impaired, hearing impaired, visually impaired, learning difficulties and, in some instances, significant ongoing illnesses. Applications are routed through third level institutions and are assessed by an ad hoc advisory group established under the aegis of the Department of Education and Science. The group makes recommendations to the Department based on the submissions from individual colleges. Expenditure on the fund increased from about €700,000 in 1999, when there were 314 recipients, to nearly €3.7 million in the last academic year, 2002, when more than 1,000 students availed of funding from it.

In discussing access to third level education, I have concentrated on the transition from second level to third level. It is important to bear in mind that other fundamental transitions are vital to improving representation at third level, particularly from people from lower socio-economic groups. These begin at the gateway of the primary school and require that pupils are persuaded to sit the leaving certificate.

Chairman

I thank Mr. McDonagh. We turn to Dr. Thornhill for the presentation on behalf of the HEA. I notice that there is a significant amount of overlapping material. Judging by the size of the presentation, Dr. Thornhill will have difficulty completing it in ten or 12 minutes.

Dr. Don Thornhill

I will take the Chairman's warning to heart. He is absolutely correct. I wish to introduce my colleagues, Mary Kerr, deputy secretary of the Higher Education Authority, and Fergal Costello, head of policy and planning. I will briefly recap on who we are and what we do.

The Higher Education Authority is a statutory body which advises the Department and the Minister on third level education. We are also the vehicle for mainstream Exchequer funding to the universities. The institutes of technology do not, as yet, come within our remit. However, it is the Minister's intention that funding for the institutes should move into the Higher Education Authority ambit in the near future.

I will cover the legislative context because much of the data has already been dealt with by Mr. McDonagh. I will then set out the actions in which the Higher Education Authority is engaged and bring the committee up to speed on the statutory review of university quality policies about which the Higher Education Authority will make a major announcement later today. I will then outline our plans in relation to the national office and some issues in the current debate.

An important backdrop to the debate on equality are the provisions of the Universities Act 1997. Every university is obliged under the Act to promote gender balance and equality of opportunity among students and employees of the university. Universities are also required to prepare and implement equality policies. The Act requires the Higher Education Authority to assist the universities and to review these policies and their implementation.

As part of the effort of assisting the universities, we commissioned Professor Malcolm Skilbeck to survey international practice on equality policies. The analytical approach shown in the presentation reflects Professor Skilbeck's methodology. Essentially, he divides the disadvantaged group into various target groups, namely, those with socio-economic disadvantage, people with disabilities, gender, mature students and part-time students, rural groups, racial minorities and Travellers.

I will quickly skip through the data that shows the long-term trend. There is an interesting slide entitled "regional participation at leaving cert". Mr. McDonagh referred to the fact that there are important transition points, both at primary and secondary level, in terms of access to third level education. The regional variations in the number of students who reach the leaving certificate are interesting, as are the variations by gender. There is a growing problem in persuading young men from lower socio-economic backgrounds to complete their second level education. This has a bearing on third level participation rates.

The next slide shows some more data on the same theme and gives a snapshot of exits from the education system, broken down by social class. This was produced from a report, commissioned by the HEA, from Professor Patrick Clancy and Ms Joy Wall of UCD. Members can see that persistence or completion at second level is dependent on social class.

The next chart shows entry to third level. We can see quite significant differences between different socio-economic groups. It is interesting that the higher professional group has reached saturation level. There is a virtually 100% chance that a young person completing the leaving certificate from a higher professional group will proceed to third level. The position among the least well-off socio-economic group - the unskilled manual worker group - is interesting. In 1980, there was a 3% probability that someone from that group would progress to third level. That has now increased to 23%, which is a significant rate of improvement, but is still below the participation for better-off classes.

It is interesting to look at the Irish situation in comparison with a sample of other countries. The next chart illustrates some OECD data. The black bar shows the overall rate of increase for participation in third level by young adults in terms of the general population for a sample of countries. The dotted line inside with the white marker shows the rate of increase for less well off socio-economic groups. In all countries, with the interesting exception of the United States, the general rate of increase is greater than the rate of increase for the less well-off groups. We asked the OECD to look at this data again in the light of more recent data, which they did for us privately, and they came back with the interesting figure that, with the exception of the US and Ireland, the rate of general participation was higher than the rate of increase for the less well off groups. Ireland joins the US in having a higher rate of increase in participation levels for less well off students than for the general student body. That in itself is an indicator of some progress.

The next slide shows data from a different source - the "Euro Student" report, published late last year. It shows the ratio of students' fathers from a working class background, relative to their proportion in the national population. This is an index of egalitarianism as far as progress to third level is concerned. It is interesting and perhaps unsurprising that Finland, which has a deeply embedded social democratic and egalitarian ethos, has a ratio of almost unity, whereas Ireland is in second place in that group.

The next chart shows the socio-economic breakdown between the institutes of technology and the universities and it is interesting that the ITs have been an major contributor to access by less well-off groups to higher education.

The Higher Education Authority operates a number of targeted initiatives. We also fund an organisation called AHEAD, which has a specific mandate to promote participation in third level by students with physical disabilities and, as Mr. McDonagh said, the newly established national office is being moved to the HEA. We have commissioned a number of publications and studies, including the Clancy and Skilbeck studies. The Clancy studies are interesting because Ireland is unique among most OECD countries in having a longitudinal study which tracks progress over a 20 year period.

The next chart breaks down Higher Education Authority expenditure over the last six-year period by target group. Total expenditure was €26.4 million over that period. The next list gives an indication of the measures the Higher Education Authority has funded. Interestingly, two years ago, the authority became concerned that these specific activities in the universities were unduly dependent on the targeted funding which was being given by the Higher Education Authority because most of our funding goes through the block-grant mechanism which, under the autonomy provisions in the Universities Act, gives the universities complete discretion in terms of expenditure of funding. We now require the universities to complement our funding with funding from their own resources which they have been doing in the last round of targeted initiatives which has been encouraging.

On the slide entitled "AHEAD survey", there are a number of bullets which refer to a doubling in the participation rate of students with physical disabilities at third level since 1994, but notwithstanding that, these students are still under-represented in the overall student population. There has been a significant increase in the numbers of students with specific learning difficulties and, surprisingly, certain areas of disability are particularly under-represented - students with hearing and sight difficulties. The next slide illustrates some specific measures which the Higher Education Authority has funded. Mr. McDonagh touched on the importance of completion. Entry to third level is one issue but completion is another. There is a concern that there may be variable completion rates dependent on socio-economic class. We do not have much data on that. The next chart is taken from a HEA-commissioned survey on non-completion in undergraduate university courses. At an overall level, the results are encouraging. Ireland is in second place internationally in terms of the proportion of students who enter third level and complete it. We know that there are specific course areas where the completion rates are lower.

The Higher Education Authority is continuing to give attention to this area. It is funding a number of initiatives in the universities, including research into the reasons for completion, the appointment of retention officers by the universities, the development of tutoring, mentoring and peer support services and counselling services and advice on strategies. Of course, in our work we are collaborating with a number of other organisations - the newly-established National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, the National Adult Learning Council and the Education Disadvantage Committee.

I mentioned that we were about to take a further significant step in terms of the HEA's role in encouraging the universities to develop and implement their equality policies. We have a role, assigned to us in the Universities Act, which requires us to monitor progress, to advise and assist the universities and to foster a supportive climate and commitment. The Higher Education Authority has broken this down into a five stage process. The first stage consists of an institutional self-evaluation by the university of it equality policies. That stage has been completed and we have received the institutional self-evaluations from all of the seven universities. The next stage is the appointment of a review team. We will be announcing later today the appointment of that review team which will be chaired by Mr. Maurice O'Connell who will be known to most members as the recently-retired governor of the Central Bank. Four experts from Ireland and abroad will assist him. This team, which is independent of the HEA, will review the institutional reports and will make recommendations and report to the Higher Education Authority following which the Higher Education Authority has the authority to prepare and publish its own report.

I will now address the Higher Education Authority proposals in regard to the national office for equity of access to higher education. The essential objectives of this office will be to develop policy and co-ordinate funding between the different agencies, to monitor implementation and to carry out evaluation. The office will target the various so-called equity groups. The McNamara report which recommended the establishment of this office called for a number of dedicated funding streams for different areas, particularly the co-ordination of approaches by all funding agencies and providers. To date, the Higher Education Authority has taken a very hands-off approach to co-ordination - and that was deliberately so. As in many other countries we wanted to encourage experimentation and the development of new programmes but the point comes when there are disparities in terms of the application of the various experimental programmes and there was a growing concern that some of these disparities were unintentionally creating obstacles and difficulties for some students. Following a review of the target initiatives we feel the time is now approaching for a more co-ordinated approach and the establishment of a national framework. The Minister, as the committee knows, has announced the establishment of the office, the Higher Education Authority is proceeding to establish it and, in fact, we have advertised three senior posts. We look forward to this important development in terms of the activities of the Higher Education Authority and we very much welcome the Minister's decision to assign this responsibility to the HEA.

The area of a policy framework draws heavily on the international survey work which was carried out by Professor Skilbeck. It is vital that the task of achieving equality in higher education is one which enables the institutions to achieve equality. Structured change takes time and that is not an excuse for inaction - far from it. The influences of wider society are hugely important in meeting the challenges of promoting access and as Mr. McDonagh has said, so are the successes of policies at earlier stages of education. None of these are excuses and Professor Skilbeck in the final paragraphs of his report - and we have taken extracts of these in the last two slides - identifies who should do this. In fact, nobody escapes his finger. Individual teachers and researchers have a responsibility. It is not good enough for a lecturer in chemistry to say his or her job is to lecture in chemistry, he or she also has to be concerned about the over-arching socio-economic imperatives. Institutional administrators and leaders have their roles, as has organisations such as the HEA. It is for public authorities and Governments to provide the resources and ensure that necessary policies and frameworks are in place.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Thornhill and Mr. McDonagh for their presentations. A huge amount of material was crammed into a very short time. I can allow three minutes per speaker to enable us to complete the members contributions and have some responses.

Deputy Enright

It is just as well that I speak quickly, Chairman. I thank both speakers for their reports. I wish Mr. O'Connell and his colleagues well in the job to which they were appointed today. I hope when the report comes out it will give us all a better understanding of what we need to do.

In regard to disadvantage there are three facts of which we are all aware; people coming from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to complete the leaving certificate; those who do generally get significantly lower grades; for students that achieve a modest performance in the leaving certificate, those in higher socio-economic backgrounds are far more likely to go on to third level. That is where we are coming from and from where we have to work.

There have been a number of initiatives in recent times. In regard to students with disabilities where the funding is provided directly to the third level institutions, what kind of evaluation does the Department or the Higher Education Authority make to see the success rate of this and to ensure that the money being provided is going in the right direction and we are getting value for money?

I got the figures in a reply to a parliamentary question in November as to how money is allocated between individual institutions in regard to the student assistance and access fund. How is this assessed? There are huge disparities in what universities get in comparison to institutes of technology or teaching training colleges and so on. Is it based on the population of the individual institutions or does something else come into play? The institutes of technology have a better geographical spread around the country and in terms of people from rural counties attending third level it is more likely that they will attend an institute of technology. It is important that we provide equality in terms of the numbers attending.

I disagree with what Mr. McDonagh said in terms of the allocations towards research in this year's Estimate and budget. We always talk about our education record and standards but he admitted that we are among the lowest in regard to people going forward for PhDs. I have spoken to people in this area and if we continue to allocate money towards research on a stop-go basis we will never encourage people to get involved in research or encourage people from abroad to come here and see the country as being in any way at the forefront of research. No matter what anyone says I do not believe we are currently seen in that way. People need to know exactly what they are dealing with in regard to funding and at the moment they do not, which means they cannot put any proper planning into their programmes. The capital funding has been quite good but I have a problem with how funding for the research area is allocated.

In regard to student retention rates, there was a report some time last year on the differences between institutions. In particular, the institutes of technology in the Dublin area had higher drop-out rates than other institutions. Has that been examined and a cause identified for why this is the case? It is important that we look into that.

I would like to hear some comments on the administration of the third level grants system. How much examination has gone into the administration by the county councils and vocational education committees and which group is perceived as the best one to operate it? Has the Department given any consideration to the point raised by the Minister in regard to its operation by the Department of Social and Family Affairs?

Deputy O’Sullivan

I welcome the delegations and thank them for their presentations. Time is very short so I will try not to repeat the questions asked by Deputy Enright.

I would like to get some more information on the areas that will be covered by the statutory review that will be announced today. Will it specifically be about third level interventions and access programmes or will it also investigate the earlier stages of the educational spectrum? We are all agreed that for certain categories of students intervention at third level is practically meaningless, in so far as they will not get there anyway so that intervention at earlier levels is of crucial importance for those students. There has been a change in the school retention programmes which have now become school completion programmes. Their structure has changed. I know we are talking about third level today but it is important to make the point that we need to have some co-ordination with what is being done at the different levels. I am addressing this to the Department rather than the HEA. Interventions at third level are meaningless for a large sector of the population particularly those who are living in certain sections of our cities. It seems to me that it is crucial that this aspect is addressed, particularly when we see what is being done in terms of support for people in education. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul said it had to spend €2 million supporting people in education. That includes support with fees and accommodation in respect of third level education.

Do the Department officials know when we are likely to see the review the Minister is conducting in respect of the Clancy and Wall report and the fees issue? The statistics we have been given indicate that free fees make a difference to lower professional salaried employees, namely PAYE workers, not so much to the lower income categories because intervention at primary and secondary levels is what counts for them.

Some universities and ITs have made submissions to expand their access programmes. Will they receive funding to facilitate their efforts? Some of them - including the University of Limerick, with which I am most familiar - have very good expansion programmes.

Deputy Gogarty

I thank Mr. McDonagh and Dr. Thornhill for appearing before the committee. I apologise if I am about to pre-empt the questions of other members.

Are there plans to conduct research into so-called survival rates among people from disadvantaged groups? How beneficial would this information be, given that the officials mentioned it in the first instance?

According to the Clancy and Wall report, Ireland has one of the highest concentrations of entrants to sub-degree programmes, which are courses one does before entering third level. Has research been carried out on the numbers from different socio-economic backgrounds participating in these programmes? Do students' leaving certificate results suffer because of their being disadvantaged by certain factors? If so, do they have to complete an extra year before being allowed to enter third level?

Some of the recommendations in the report to which Mr. McDonagh referred specified interventions at pre-school, first and second levels. When would such interventions be planned? The primary school door is almost more important than gaining access to third level.

Having read some of the earlier reports, I note that there was a section on the analytical group approach. Widening Access to Higher Level Education in Ireland, in its analysis of equity groups, uses the following subdivisions: socio-economic disadvantage; people with a disability; women; mature age and part-time students; rural; and minority groups, including travellers and refugees. One glaring omission was Dublin because the Clancy and Wall report mentioned that it has a unique position in terms of regional disparities affecting higher education. It is consistently designated as one of the counties with the lowest admission rates. There is an 11-fold difference between admission rates in Dublin 18, for example, and Dublin 10, which mirrors the socio-economic patters. However, Dublin is a special case because one third of the population live here.

Are there any mechanisms for monitoring equality policies effectively and for taking action if it is discovered that these are not in place? For example, I was recently contacted by a constituent who contended that Trinity College does not have an equality policy in place. Will the officials make a commitment to investigate this?

Deputy Crowe

I recently tabled a question to the Minister regarding income thresholds and the difficulties people have in obtaining higher education grants. I was told that the Minister's review of student support provisions is being carried out. Difficulties arise if salaries are a couple of euro over the income threshold, in which case the people concerned are not entitled to grants. When will the review be published?

Access to transport is a difficulty for people with disabilities. The graph that has been circulated indicates that grants are available. One of the health boards provides a motorised transport grant for people suffering from mobility impairments. Does the Department have a view on whether this grant should be made available to people attending university? The current grant relates to those who wish to obtain or retain employment. I have made representations to the Department of Health and Children on the matter. Will the Department of Education and Science make a similar representation to help improve access to transport?

There is a figure of €9.1 million for Higher Education Authority funding of targeted initiatives in respect of mature students. I thought the figure was lower. How will the withdrawal of the post-graduate grant affect post-graduate students?

Deputy Enright made a proposal regarding transferring responsibility for the Higher Education Authority grant from the local authorities. What progress is being made regarding the transfer of payments? Can I have an update on the benchmarking process? When can we expect the publication of the Department's report on fees, about which the Minister has been talking?

Deputy Hoctor

I also welcome the members of the Higher Education Authority. What is the opinion of the authority on fees and the promotion of access to third level for disadvantaged people? Will the fees factor demote the possibility of young people gaining access to third level education? I believe it will not.

Comparison with people studying for PhDs abroad suggests that access to personnel in the PhD area is not always available in our colleges. People often feel compelled to go abroad to complete their PhD courses.

Consider the phenomenon of students alternating between courses within third level. I know that some students decide during their first term that the course they have chosen is not suitable for them. They commence a new course the following year only to find that it does not suit them either. What is the financial cost for such students? Does this lead to confusion within the Higher Education Authority? I believe there has been a high drop-out rate as a result. What can be done so students will make better choices?

Is there a network system in place between Irish and UK colleges to enable people who commence courses at first year level in the UK to return to an Irish college to complete their courses? If so, is it working? If not, has the Department plans to establish one in the future?

Deputy Andrews

I welcome the delegation. Ballyfermot was referred to in the presentation. I used to teach in the senior college there. I recall asking one of the boys in leaving certificate class what he intended to do when he left school. It was so far from his mind that I was asking him what he intended to study at third level that he said he intended to go home. Nobody from that leaving certificate class went to third level. I am surprised it is as high as 10%.

I have some experience of area based partnership bodies. I know some of the partnerships administered millennium funds and this is important in disadvantaged areas. The delegation has also referred to the development of links with schools. I am anxious that this be done on a co-ordinated basis. As Deputy O'Sullivan said earlier, those schools are operating the student retention programme. The link between the authority and those schools needs to be well co-ordinated. What is the view of the authority on this? While many other bodies, such as The Society of St. Vincent De Paul, are involved in student retention, there is a lack of co-ordination in the area.

Senator Minihan

I thank the authority for its informative presentation. What initiatives, contributions or co-actions are taking place between the Higher Education Authority and primary and secondary level schools - particularly those at primary level - to enhance the prospects of disadvantaged groups accessing third level education? We all know how important it is to prepare students at primary level. It is one thing for the Higher Education Authority to have an initiative but there must be a correlation.

There is an increase in the number of partnership and community groups being assisted. What does this mean in real terms? It is one thing to target a number of groups. What figure does the authority have available?

I notice we are slightly below the mean in regard to PhDs. Are there plans to work with the new science foundation? I hope something concrete is in place, as we have to increase our PhD output in this area. With the downturn in manufacturing we will have to move towards this. I would like to see pro-active work with the science foundation.

Senator Fitzgerald

I welcome Mr. McDonagh and his team and Dr. Thornhill and his team from the HEA. In the mid-1970s inner city primary school teachers made a co-ordinated attempt to focus the attentions of children and raise their expectations of completing second level and attending third level. This was a big target at the time and I must confess that the efforts did not come to much. What new initiatives are envisaged? How is it envisaged that the primary school teachers be made a central part of the programme? It is vital that the primary teachers be made aware of, and participate in, the programme. If this does not happen I respectfully suggest the programme will come no nought.

Dr. Thornhill referred to demographic trends with regard to the age cohort. I recall a survey that focused on 15 to 19 year-olds. It predicted that with a mean of 100 in 2000, the mean would be reduced to 71 by 2010. This also pointed out that it would have serious implications for third level. While the survey also looked at the potential for extra mural and mature student participation, it suggested the gap would not be filled. What ideas do the Department and the authority have for programmes to enhance greater access?

Deputy Stanton

I welcome the delegations. Did the abolition of fees make a difference for access to third level? If so, what is the nature of the difference? With the changes introduced to the tax year, is there any reason students and their parents cannot be told earlier if they will receive maintenance grants? Are figures available showing how many students have to wait until their third level course has commenced before they receive confirmation of the receipt of maintenance grants? This causes stress for many people. Why cannot these forms be issued at this time of the year? P60s were issued in January and there is no reason students cannot be told in May if they are entitled to the grant.

What supports are delivered by partnership and community groups? How much money will be made available to the student assistance fund this year? When speaking about relative inequality between classes, are figures available to indicate the different socio-economic groups taking part in different levels of third level education? For example, do people from higher socio-economic groups have higher participation rates in veterinary, medical and law courses?

Have the delegations any comments to make on articles that recently appeared in the Irish Farmers’ Journal? These articles looked at the feeder schools to third level institutions. What impact are grinds schools having in this? What are the views of the delegations on grinds schools? Can more information be given about the drop-out rates at third level? Anecdotal evidence suggests the rates are quite high while the failure rate among first years at third level is a problem. What are the views of the Department and the authority on this?

How are top-up grants administered? There are problems in this area; I have met students who did not even know of the existence of such grants.

Chairman

I agree with the Deputy. While I tried to count the number of questions, I lost count. There is very little repetition and it will be difficult to answer them all. In the event of outstanding questions, will the bodies be willing to send us written answers?

Has it been possible for head teachers to pursue the progress of students with disabilities in obtaining and staying in employment? We met the Institute of Engineers a few weeks ago and discussed the STEPS programme. While that delegation raised many points, one related to the competitiveness of the economy if the rates of participation continue to drop or do not increase. Unfortunately, that accords with results and trends in most other countries. How much contact does the Higher Education Authority have with the curriculum unit, for example, in the context of ensuring that science, technology and mathematics regain the beneficial position they once had?

Mr. McDonagh

We have not yet carried out a formal evaluation of the disability fund. One of the advantages of the national access office is that we can formalise arrangements such as this. The applications process for the disability fund requires applications to come through the disability office through the institutions and there is a lot of detail involved in the applications being made which, last year, were assessed by the ad hoc group. This group comprised a former Higher Education Authority official, the secretary provided by a higher executive officer in the Department and people from AHEAD. We are happy with the quality of the initial assessment in terms of providing the grant aid. However, as with most things in the public domain, resources are a problem.

We generally use an ad hoc arrangement with regard to the student access fund - we allocate the fund on a capitation basis. If we have a fund of €9 million, we take the aggregate numbers in the institutions and divide it out on a pro rata basis. This could probably be fine tuned and this is something we are examining. If, at institutional level, one had a firmer fix on the socio-economic representation within institutions, one could weight the allocations, but we do not have that sort of data to the extent required. This is something that can also be examined when we get more robust structures formalised.

In the late 1990s, we were not giving any dedicated funding to research, whereas this year the Department of Education and Science will give nearly €50 million, which represents an 8% increase in the research budget on the current side. There have been some problems on the capital side under the PRTL phase 3 - and Dr. Thornhill may want to say something about that - but it is only a pause, as the Minister announced at the time. Significant funding is still being allocated to research compared to four or five years ago. Significant funding is also coming through Science Foundation Ireland.

I will not get into definitive opinions about social welfare student support because it is a political and policy decision. We have three schemes of support for students at third level and a PLC scheme and, over the past few years, we have been trying to bring these schemes more into line so we can eventually collapse them into one. We will not have a VEC scholarship scheme and so on, there will be a third level student support scheme. We have made some progress but there are still some anomalies between the schemes where certain things are allowed in one scheme and not in another. We need to close those gaps to achieve a single scheme.

In terms of the administration of the schemes, arguments have been put forward that local authorities and vocational education committees are closer to the local community and so have an advantage in terms of local knowledge on queries. On the other hand, it is argued that a means testing agency which has expertise such as the Department of Social and Family Affairs, will achieve greater consistency. It is also argued that there is less consistency with a plethora of bodies at local level. Some other countries have moved towards setting up central student support agencies which often manage student loan schemes. Those are the options, but I cannot tell the members which one to pursue.

It is expected the review will be ready in the near future. Its purpose is to identify options for the Minister and, at that stage, it is for him to decide on the way forward. As a civil servant, I will not be drawn on whether I think free fees are a good idea or not but——

Deputy Hoctor

That was not my question to Mr. McDonagh. It was with regard to the possible introduction of fees. Surveys have been carried out which show that the introduction of fees would not affect access to people categorised as disadvantaged. I would like to know Mr. McDonagh's opinion on that.

Mr. McDonagh

If there were means tests under the old student support schemes or even the present ones, disadvantaged groups would satisfy them. The abolition of free fees is not a problem because, as far as I can see, it will not affect those groups. Under the present arrangements for fee grants, there can be anomalous areas. For instance, a person who does not satisfy the three and five-year rule, but who satisfies the one-year residency requirement with a means test under the support schemes, would get the grant if he or she satisfied the income limits. When the British Government re-introduced the £1,100 fee, those with net income under £20,500 did not have to pay the fee. Our means test is calculated on the basis of a gross income limit and a rough translation of the British arrangement to the Irish context would be an income limit of about €33,000. Our means test limit is about €35,000 for a full fee grant.

A number of members raised the issue of linkages between primary, post-primary and third level. An educational disadvantage committee was established under the Education Act. The former Minister for Education and Science, Dr. Woods, asked that committee to undertake a root and branch review of the wide range of individual programmes already in place to combat educational disadvantage and the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, endorsed that approach when he took office. The committee has addressed a number of issues related to the integration and cohesion of service provision to students in the greatest need.

An educational disadvantage forum convened and outcomes from that forum have clearly signalled to the Minister the need for an integrated and comprehensive policy framework for educational inclusion and for more coherent structures to be established at both policy and operational levels. We expect that a report on the forum's deliberations and discussions will be presented to the Minister shortly.

We are trying to get greater cohesion in terms of the schemes we are delivering at primary and post-primary levels but also into third level. We anticipate that the creation of the access office will allow more robust structures to be created so we can get a more coherent response. This will involve a review of what we are doing at the moment. One of the exercises we want the office to undertake is to examine the range of funding the Higher Education Authority is providing and what we are providing to see if we need to rationalise it or target it in a better way.

On the question of survival at third level, a criterion one could use is that at present about 47% of students in the institutes of technology are eligible for a means-tested maintenance grant. The figure in the university sector is about 34%. If one wants a broad benchmark, this indicates that there is a greater representation of lower socio-economic groups in the institutes of technology. Somebody mentioned that being one euro above the threshold can lose one either half the grant or the full grant. That was identified in the de Butléir report and we need to investigate whether there is a way of dealing with this through tapering relief.

From the representations I hear, people find the existing student support means testing arrangements quite complicated. Moving to tapering relief means it becomes even more complicated. However, it is a valid point and could be addressed through a system of gradations. Absolute tapering relief would mean that if one was one euro over the income limit one would lose 50 cent in the grant. That is a fairly detailed and complicated way of doing it. An alternative would be to have gradations of €100 - a reduction for every €100 one is above the income limit. Again, that has a cost, because there is a resource implication. This must be borne in mind in any examination of that area.

Chairman

We will let Mr. Thornhill speak for a while.

Dr. Thornhill

It is not the first time Mr. McDonagh has left me speechless.

Deputy Enright is absolutely correct - social class influences one's performance in the leaving certificate. What is interesting and challenging for all policy makers is that if a student scores very well in the leaving certificate, social class has no influence on his or her likelihood of going on to third level. If he or she performs in the middle of the range or poorly, social class has a big impact. The pause in capital funding for the PRTLI, to which Mr. McDonagh just referred, was mentioned. That was a great disappointment for the Higher Education Authority and we are working with the Department to try to mitigate the effects of that. We hope the pause will be a short one.

Will access programmes be funded by the Higher Education Authority this year? The Higher Education Authority has yet to take a formal decision, but the view among members is much in favour of the continuation of the access programmes. Turning to Deputy O'Sullivan's question about the statutory review of equality policies, these will focus on the actions of the universities themselves. I take a "both-and" rather than an "either-or" view. Equality policies pursued by universities are very important because there is much evidence that if students from less well-off backgrounds or with particular disabilities find the third-level environment uncongenial or strange, their chances of completing their courses are reduced. There is a famous story about Brendan Behan asking his father what Trinity College was, only for his father to tell him not to worry, he would never go there. There was a perception of a huge social barrier over which people had to climb.

Deputy Gogarty asked whether there was a socio-economic bias to survival rates at third level. That question was not asked in the Higher Education Authority study of the universities, but I have no doubt there is, going back to the point of Deputy O'Sullivan's question. I do not know whether some of the studies carried out in the Institutes of Technology dealt with that issue. I should have mentioned in terms of the analytical approach that it was an international convention. There are problems that are specific to Dublin but most, sadly, are shared by other big cities. One of the real issues is the socio-economic environment in large areas of entrenched disadvantage. The young people do not have the same role models as those available to, for example, disadvantaged students in rural areas. I do not want to underestimate the difficulties encountered by less well-off students from rural backgrounds, but students in large areas of serious disadvantage must deal with particular set of problems, one of which is a lack of support and role models. We would be happy to bring to the attention of the review group Deputy Gogarty's point about Trinity College, if the person making the representation to him agrees.

Most of Deputy Crowe's questions were directed at Mr. McDonagh, focusing on the grants issue. Deputy Hoctor referred to the problem of students returning from the UK. There is no co-ordinated, articulated national framework at the moment for credit recognition. The National Qualifications Authority is working on a qualifications structure that would apply nationally, and the next stage would be to have an international framework. A pilot scheme, the European credit transfer mechanism, has been developed by the EU, but it is quite limited in its application. To put an international network in place would be a large and difficult task, but it is almost inevitable - it has to be done.

The issue of students who change courses being registered as drop-outs was mentioned. This can often be traumatic for the student and his or her family. For this reason, I am sceptical of the value of limited and focused third level courses. I much prefer to see both the ITs and the universities running very broad-brush courses for first-year students so that they can get a sense of what areas they like. It is not a good idea, for example, to have a course in international marketing and Japanese. That is very specialised. DCU has one, and the completion rate is high, but the students doing the course are very clever. As a general principle I would prefer to see wider-ranging courses, for example, a four-subject entry into science or a three-subject entry into arts.

Senator Minihan moved into the research area and asked whether there was co-operation with SFI in relation to PhD funding. There is a co-ordinating body among the various research funding organisations, which the Higher Education Authority and the Health Research Board and the Irish Council for Research in Science, Technology and Engineering took the initiative in setting up, and that has recently been joined by SFI. One of the issues there is the level of emoluments for postgraduate students. The Higher Education Authority will shortly publish a report on the general issue of promoting careers and the option of postgraduate study, particularly in science and technology. Both the Senator and Deputy Enright have stressed the importance of student take-up in that area.

Senator Fitzgerald spoke, as did Senator Minihan, of the link between third level and first and second level. The Higher Education Authority does not have formal relationships with first and second level schools, but the funding we provide to the universities allows them to establish links with second level schools, which have been very important. Once, it was suggested by somebody at a meeting that the Higher Education Authority third-level equality funding should be withdrawn and given to second and first level, whereupon a secondary school principal from a less well-off area said very vehemently that the partnership arrangements between the individual universities and schools was vitally important because, to return to the point about urban disadvantage, this gave her students the opportunity to have face-to-face encounters, visit campuses, get involved in short tutorials and so on. She did not want to see those partnerships weakened in any way through withdrawal of funding. Her passion and enthusiasm were remarkable.

The Chairman asked about AHEAD. It is applying increasing attention to programmes to promote progress by its graduates in employment. The Higher Education Authority recently had a formal meeting with AHEAD and has since identified higher education access for those with disabilities as a major strategic priority and is seeking funding for it from a number of sources. AHEAD is probably one of the best NGOs in the country.

Chairman

I thank all of the witnesses. This meeting has been very informative and helpful. It is an area we will revisit so we might see them again in the not too distant future.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.05 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 11 March 2003.