Vol. 509 No. 3
9 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Education and Science the steps, if any, he will take to facilitate the entry of a greater number of young people from disadvantaged communities into third level education and particularly into universities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20092/99]
39 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason for the failure by the Government to achieve its target in relation to the participation by students from lower socio-economic groups in university; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20019/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 39 together.
The 1995 White Paper on Education provided that the Higher Education Authority, in consultation with the third level institutions, would be asked to advise on the most appropriate and effective means of achieving an annual increase in participation of 500 students from lower socio-economic groups in third level education over the next five years. The White Paper further provided that each third level institution would be encouraged to develop links with designated second level schools.
Through some targeted funding provided to the universities by the Higher Education Authority and funding from within the overall financial allocations to the institutes of technology, the third level colleges have developed initiatives, as proposed in the White Paper, which involve links with second level schools and local communities. Examples of these activities include the Pathways Through Education project, supervised study programmes, summer schools, study skills programmes and mentoring.
The Higher Education Authority is currently compiling statistical information in relation to the initiatives under way to increase participation, and the authority has commissioned Dr. Bob Osborne of the University of Ulster to undertake an evaluation of these initiatives. The authority has also commissioned Professor Malcolm Skilbeck to consider, in an international context, trends and issues arising from efforts to improve equity in higher education and to identify strategies and procedures that show promise in meeting objectives of greater equity. This study will address the full range of equality issues, not just those pertaining to socio-economic disadvantage. In addition, I understand that the fourth national survey of entrants to higher education, being undertaken by Professor Patrick Clancy on behalf of the Higher Education Authority, is expected to be published in late spring 2000.
The work of the Commission on the Points System, which I established in October 1997, is also relevant in this regard. Its terms of reference include examining the effect of the existing system of entry to third level education on access to third level of students who have experienced significant educational disadvantage. I understand the commission's report is being finalised presently.
These various studies will facilitate a critical examination of the current arrangements. These arrangements will be complemented and strengthened by the £6.9 million funding initiative I announced to tackle educational disadvantage at third level. Of this funding, £3 million is being specifically allocated to promote access to third level among students from disadvantaged backgrounds, including people with disabilities. My Department has had discussions with the access officers of the colleges, the Union of Students in Ireland, the Higher Education Authority and other interested bodies in relation to this funding and I hope to be in a position to finalise the arrangements for the funding in the near future.
A further sum of £1.5 million is being provided to address the issue of non-completion of courses in important parts of the third level system. My Department is currently engaged in discussions with institutes of technology with regard to the measures for which this funding will be used. In addition, in agreeing to an increase in the student services charge for this year it has been indicated to institutes of technology that £8 of this charge is to be specifically devoted to attrition-access initiatives in the institutes. The institutes have been requested to furnish the proposals for the attrition-access initiatives in this context at an early date.
The remaining £2.4 million of the funding initiative will permit the higher, non-adjacent rate of grant to be paid to all eligible mature students under the student support schemes with effect from the 1999-2000 academic year. I will stop there because the answer is sufficiently long as it is.
It would be wrong not to acknowledge the efforts being made in many third level institutions. Is the Minister in a position to indicate the number of second level colleges which do not liaise with a third level institution? The increased efforts being made in third level institutions will come to nothing if new connections are not made with the second level institutions where the need is greatest. It is not an impossible task for the Department to tell us what proportion of second level institutions have made meaningful contact with appropriate third level institutions to offer their students a choice.
I do not have the exact figure with me but I can give the Deputy the information on second level schools which have developed linkages with third level colleges. Some third level colleges are fairly late into the field in terms of initiatives. UCD, in terms of the New Era project, DCU, Dublin Institute of Technology, UCC laterally and others have developed linkages with second level schools, mainly in designated disadvantaged areas. That is the key to progress.
I am aware of many second level colleges which regard third level institutions as a totally different world. There is no connection between the advice available to the most vulnerable students and what they are prepared for at third level. What intervention mechanism is available when the connection does not exist?
We are providing additional resources but the institutions must do more. Some have done more than others. I met the directors of the institutes of technology yesterday and I told them we have not done enough as a society over the years to advance and increase the participation rates of those from socio-economic backgrounds in third level institutions. We must start at primary and second level. There must be more linkages between schools and between universities and institutes of technology. Some laudable initiatives have started, including the BITE initiative with DCU and the New Era programme in UCD. Some colleges started access programmes as late as last year. The key is to work with the access officers in the third level institutions to develop the linkages. We have asked them to come back to us with their plans for expanding initiatives in this area and we will fund those plans.
Does the Minister agree that every time we look for figures, someone is evaluating them and we are told we will get them soon? The Department stated that 87 people had entered the third level sector under this initiative whereas the target in the White Paper is 2,500.
It is 500 in the White Paper.
I thought it was 500 per year, which would be 2,500 by now. Does the Minister agree it is time to consider playing a stronger role in this area, such as stating that funding for colleges should be conditional on them establishing and developing programmes to a minimum target level? Has he set target levels for his own initiative of £6.9 million? We want to be able to ask in a year's time how much did the Department achieve of the target it set. This has been an area of commitment studded with good promises but little—
Funding mechanisms or structures were not in the Department or in many of the third level colleges. The only funding made available to the initiatives, such as the BITE initiative, was a fairly meagre disadvantage fund of £0.5 million from 1995 onwards and half of that was allocated for access purposes for students with disabilities. The first major funding in this area was provided in last year's budget. The Deputy is correct that we will take a strong directional role in this area in terms of the governance of the various institutions. We do not govern the institutions but we fund them. They have indicated to us they are willing to participate in this endeavour. I am still not entirely satisfied they are working in a coherent and co-ordinated way in terms of the numbers.
Does the Minister accept that while the colleges have a clear responsibility in this, the lead must be given by the Government and to do so the Government must make clear it is serious about tackling this problem? Does he further accept that if the problem is to be tackled in a meaningful way clear data must be available on the current participation rates and that targets should be set for increasing those rates? When we discussed this issue before the summer recess, the Minister was not in a position to provide any data to us on the participation rates from different counties or parts of cities. Has he gathered any information since on the current position so that we can monitor it and see what progress, if any, is being made?
We have data and we have done a number of exercises. There are a number of routes through which people from disadvantaged socio-economic groups can go to college. We have looked at revising the grants scheme.
Does the Minister have figures to show how bad the situation is?
I have figures and they show not how bad the situation is but how good it is in some cases.
It is bad in most cases.
It is interesting to note that if we wanted to bring in a new tier of third level grant to cover students from families which depend on social welfare, a significant number would make it to college who would not make it through the route of the various initiatives, such as access programmes.
Is the Minister not doing that?
The data which came from that, compared to the data collected from the various initiatives, indicates a higher number of people from lower socio-economic groups are participating. The numbers coming through the initiatives are low.
What are the rates? Has the Minister any information on that?
We have, although I do not have it with me.
What is the percentage from the lower socio-economic groups?
Professor Clancy is providing that and he will complete his survey in late spring. He has undertaken an exhaustive survey of participation in third level. He is the resident expert in this field.
Does the Minister have information on that?
I told the Deputy we have certain data on the profile of students attending third level.
Some 90 per cent do not go to third level.
Professor Clancy's survey is almost complete.
Will the Minister set targets?
We will set targets. It is a pity previous Governments did not set targets and do something about it.
The money is available now.
It is available but it does not take a lot of money.
It is a long-fingering exercise.
