Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In July 2014, the Minister for Education and Skills established an expert group to examine future funding policy for higher education. The group was charged with identifying and considering issues relating to the long-term sustainable funding of higher education in this country, and to identify options for change for consideration by the Minister for Education and Skills. It has had consultations with relevant stakeholders and interested parties during the course of its work. The purpose of the meeting is for members of the group to brief us on their work.

First, I must advise on privilege. I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They 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 or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statement submitted to the committee will be published on the committee website after the meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask everyone to turn off their mobile phones completely or put them on safe mode or flight mode. Otherwise, they interfere with the broadcasting equipment. Mr. Peter Cassells is accompanied by Ms Laura Casey and Ms Mary Armstrong. I invite him to make his presentation.

Mr. Peter Cassells:

I thank the Chairman and the other members of the committee for the opportunity to brief it on the work of the expert group on the future funding of higher education, and also to get their views and advice on the issues we are considering. As the Chairman said, the former Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, established an expert group in July 2014. We were asked to consider the long-term sustainable funding of higher education in this country and to identify funding options for the future. I was asked to chair the group as an independent chair. The other members are listed in the appendix to the opening statement that has been provided so I will not go through that information. As the Chairman indicated, I am joined today by two members of the secretariat, Laura Casey and Mary Armstrong. No doubt, they will be able to provide help if we get into detailed technical questions.

With the agreement of the Chairman, I will briefly outline the context for the group’s establishment, the work programme we are undertaking and the process of consultation and engagement. It is not only consultation with the universities and institutes of technology, IOTs, but also with parents, students, business and social organisations. Today we will engage with the political process. I will then outline the key messages coming through in our work to date and in the consultation paper we published.

The group was established to address the growing pressures on the higher education system, which are well documented. Student numbers have grown substantially since 2008 and will continue to do so in the coming years, while staff numbers and public funding has reduced. Of the 210,000 students in universities and institutes of technology, 25,000 have entered since the economic crisis began. That is due to the increasing number of school leavers but also more adult learners entering the system. There has been a reduction in staff of approximately 2,000, which is an approximate reduction of 10%. As a result, the staff to student ratio has decreased and lags behind international norms. Core expenditure per student has decreased by approximately 10%. More important, in terms of demographics, enrolments are projected to grow by nearly one third over the next 15 years. Those twin pressures are resulting in what the Higher Education Authority outlined to the committee in February, namely, "a high and growing level of risk that significant unfunded expansion in numbers participating in higher education will damage the quality of provision" of higher education in Ireland with all the attendant consequences. I will return to the point. The main message coming through to date in our work is that the status quoof increasing numbers without increasing resources or a better use of existing resources is not an option.

In looking at the future options, as a group we are very conscious that we are undertaking this work at a time when the country has come through a very deep crisis but is now at a turning point. We are at the stage where we need to revive development in a way that lays the foundations for balanced future prosperity and greater social cohesion. In addressing the challenge, our growing young and highly educated population, which is unique in Europe, gives us an enormous advantage and opportunity. However, availing of that opportunity will require significant investment in education, not just higher education but further education and apprenticeships and an examination of the use of current resources. The requirement for further investment in education comes at a time when despite the stabilisation of the public finances, public resources and household incomes will continue to be stretched for some time. We will all be faced with many difficult investment choices. Committee members do not need me to spell out the competing demands such as health services, housing, jobs and regional development. It is necessary to evaluate where education fits in among those priorities. To come to any conclusion on the future funding of higher education and what priority should be given, we need first to achieve a shared understanding of what we are funding and what value higher education and its different contributions offers society and the economy. That is the main focus of the current phase of work and what I wish to brief the committee on today.

Committee members have the expert group’s terms of reference, so I will not go through them except to say that they encompass two or three issues which are of importance to us. First is the identification of the benefits of higher education not just to the individual but also to the wider economy and society. We are also focusing on the examination of future demand for higher education. I mentioned that the projections show an increase of approximately one third in the next 15 years. We are also currently examining the potential for efficiencies and giving consideration to long-term funding options. It would be easier if it were just a technical exercise but that is not the case. We are required to come up with implementable options, for example, to members as public representatives, and to try to seek to build a shared understanding around those options. As the Chair has indicated, an important aspect of the group’s work programme is consultation with the sector itself and with the wide range of stakeholders and interested parties such as parents, students, business and regional groupings.

This consultation process will be ongoing as part of trying to get a shared understanding of the options. Today is part of that consultation to brief the committee.

We are approaching the work programme in three phases about which I want to inform the committee as we will want to revert if we can be given the opportunity in the next phases. The first phase is the examination of the role, value and future scale of higher education in Ireland. We have published a consultation paper on that which the committee has received. I will return to the key points in the paper shortly. Following the publication of that paper, we have engaged in wide-ranging consultation. We have had a roundtable discussion with representatives from the sector, including management, students, staff, businesses and employers, people from second level and further education, community and voluntary groups, and Departments and Government agencies. We have also had targeted forums around these areas. What that is giving us is a deep insight into what our people's expectations from the higher education system are and what the challenges are going to be to meet those expectations.

The second phase of our work programme, which we are moving into now, looks at the current operation of the system and its level of efficiency and effectiveness. This is a very important aspect of our work because before there is any consideration of additional investment, we want to be confident that the current resources are being managed and used to best effect. We are examining income streams into the universities and institutes of technology, the levels of expenditure, the opportunities for new working methods, including the use of technology, workload management, shared services, and regional collaboration between different institutions, to name a few. In that context, we will be seeking to benchmark the performance of the Irish system against international comparators. We expect to publish our second consultation paper which will address those areas in that phase in June and, again, we will have a round of consultation around that area to see the reactions and responses. The final phase of the work will be the identification and examination of the range of options with the potential to provide a sustainable base for the funding of higher education in the long term. For this phase, we will draw on international expertise and experience and also engage in significant consultation. It is not just a matter for the institutions involved as to how this would happen. It is also a matter for parents, the taxpayer and the committee members as public representatives.

I return briefly to some of the key elements in the paper we published in January. It is around the role, value and scale of higher education and its contribution both to the economy and society and the challenges of maintaining and enhancing those contributions. On the gains, there is no doubt, as members will see from the paper where we have tried to go into it in some detail, that investment in higher education has been a key in enabling both the economy to grow but also the contribution that has been made to the development of society over recent decades. Our well-educated population remains a central plank of our national economic strategy. As a member of the board of the IDA, I know how that comes up continually and to a greater extent sometimes than the corporation tax rate among companies with which the IDA has discussions. Graduates' knowledge and capabilities are crucial to enhancing productivity. The institutions themselves are central to the whole area of research and knowledge generation, but also as engines of growth regionally and in local economic development. I will come back to the question of whether they are and how we make that happen. In overall terms, it is clear that the State and taxpayers benefit significantly from the investment through higher tax contributions and lower calls on welfare . However, the paper also points out that we should not just look at this in economic terms. In social and cultural terms, there are also strong gains from having a higher education system. Higher education informs and nurtures our understanding of our own national identity, those of other cultures and belief systems, enriches our own cultural heritage and raises the whole question not only of our history but also of our culture in other areas.

A significant number of graduates, in fact the majority, find employment in the public sector. This is often something people ignore. Higher education is instrumental in enhancing the quality and the professionalism of a great many services, particularly in education, health and public administration. In the paper, we set out that we are looking at this as a collective public good, as a collective success for our society and in terms of the individual gains people get from having gone through higher education. However, there are also significant personal gains. We have shown that graduates earn more and find employment more easily in Ireland. An honours degree is linked to earning 100% more than an adult whose highest educational attainment is the leaving certificate or its equivalent. We have brought together a great deal of information to show the gains in terms of getting employment and the level of incomes that graduates have.

The paper also looks at the growing demand for higher education. There is a strong and growing demand for higher education both from the perspective of those who are seeking to enter it, the traditional 18 year olds, and increasingly adult learners. There is also a growing demand from the labour market for graduate education, and the consultation paper sets out a continuing demand for higher education graduates. It is projected that nearly half of all job openings by 2025 will be for graduates. That is a key issue we need to address. The paper also shows that participation rates in higher education have grown year on year. In 1980, the participation rate in higher education was 20%. It is now 56%. This reflects what we all know in our own family lives, which is the increasing normality of going to higher education for a much broader cohort of students. In my own case, no one from my family, including me, went to higher education other than subsequently in terms of apprenticeships or what we called night education. The majority of the next generation have gone to higher education, however, and have an expectation of that continuing to the next generation. Our current demographic structure will continue to drive higher education demand over the next period. That is unique in Europe. We included a graph in the briefing for members to show that the future projected demand includes 30% growth in numbers over the next decade. That is driven by demographic change alone and takes no account of any change in the participation rate.

It is important to mention something that we and the committee members as public representatives and policy-makers need to take into account, which is that demand for higher education is influenced by a range of alternatives for school leavers and other potential earners. For example, we need to look at further education, apprenticeships and post-second level opportunities and to determine how those opportunities or entry points open up for people. A strategy is being developed for further education and another is being developed around apprenticeships. In recent years, the trend has been more towards higher education directly because the opportunities that are relevant were not there, and this must be considered in tandem with the work that we are doing.

We have identified four areas we believe need to be the enduring focus in terms of the quality and contribution of higher education. The first one is very important. It is that the quality of the provision and the quality of the graduates is what remains paramount. It is what higher education, whether at the university or the institute of technology, is about.

This is the single most important way in which higher education serves students, society, taxpayers and the public good. We need graduates who can understand our past, engage with the present, imagine the future and engage in critical thinking. This requires renewed attention not just to what graduates learn but also to how they learn.

The second area is research, either in the arts and the humanities or the STEM subjects. We suggest the institutions need to further adapt and respond to the fundamental changes taking place in innovation and how knowledge is generated. Knowledge is not just generated in the universities or from science, engineering and technology, it happens across a range of spheres, including higher education, business, government and civil society. It is through their overlap and engagement in all of these areas that other countries have the edge. Interaction in an open manner in a wider range of disciplines means innovation and knowledge generation are not confined to science, technology and engineering but are extended to the arts and the humanities. Where they overlap, we have the advantage of being able to operationalise research later.

Third, we require the system to be more responsive to the changing needs of the economy, society and the public system in the medium and long term. This raises questions about how to give attention to improving the employability of graduates. Throughout the consultation process we kept hearing that while the core discipline and qualification were important, the capacity of graduates to engage in team work, communication, accept responsibility and engage in critical thinking and problem solving were equally important. The issue of quality, informed career guidance and support for students is also crucial and we must consider how we fund this in the future. In that context, we must also consider regional development and what role the institutions should play in enabling regions to develop economically and socially in co-operation with businesses, Government agencies and civil society.

The fourth crucial area we identified was that of equitable access to the opportunities offered by higher education. Access for persons from non-traditional backgrounds needs to be improved. Our paper sets out the issues in this regard. From the point of view of funding, we must acknowledge that addressing resource inequities is resource intensive. While significant progress has been made - we received presentations from the Cork Institute of Technology, DCU, the Institute of Technology Tallaght and others on their programmes - we believe improved access for under-represented groups must be a key part of the social contract in the context of future funding improvements. We have set this out in our consultation paper. These are the broad issues on which we have concentrated in our consultations.

I thank the committee for providing us with this opportunity to give it an overview of the task the group has been given and the approach we are taking to it. This is not just a technical exercise. We firmly believe we need to develop a shared understanding of the role and value of higher education and the efficiency of the current system before we consider funding requirements and options for meeting these requirements. I look forward to the discussion and hearing the committee's views on the issues raised which will be a key part of the advice we are gathering. I would also welcome an opportunity to return to the committee as our work progresses during the year because it will provide significant options that will require consideration not just by us but also by the committee and the Government.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will take questions from members and then return to Mr. Cassells for his responses to them.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests and thank them for taking the time to make their presentation on this key issue. Will Mr. Cassells give us a general overview of the group's timeline and what it hopes to achieve? Of what will the remaining stages of its work consist and when will it be completed? When can we expect to see the final report?

Were reports undertaken before the working committee was commissioned which are feeding into its work? It is difficult to disagree with any work the group is carrying out as, in many ways, it appears to be engaged in a blue sky exercise. That leads to a general question as to whether it would have made more sense to put the group to work three or four years ago in order that recommendations would have been ready by now for us to work on. What reports have fed into the work the group is doing?

Mr. Cassells gave a good outline of many of the dynamics at play in recent times, including the 10% increase in student numbers and the 15% reduction in funding. Based on the interaction and consultation so far, what is his view on whether this has led to a reduction in quality? Is this something he believes to be the case?

On the current position, recently the president of NUIG, Dr. Jim Browne, said he believed the system was at tipping point. Will Mr. Cassells comment on this? Does he agree and believe that is the position? What are the implications of any delay in addressing this issue?

Will Mr. Cassells comment on the group's consultations? Are there variations in the feedback from universities versus that from institutes of technology?

In regard to massive online open education courses, MOOCs, what examination or recommendations will the group make?

Mr. Cassells has mentioned the four key areas on which he will report and the importance of good career advice to ensure students are aware of outcomes and job opportunities and in matching students appropriately with what they may do when they finish their education. I am interested in hearing what, if any, feedback he has received, the current position and whether the issue needs to be addressed.

On international models, will the group examine what happens in other countries and how it can be applied to Ireland, particularly in terms of funding models?

Will the final report present options or recommendations and will the group make a call on what it believes should happen? Will it tie down its recommendations as opposed to presenting a menu of options for consideration?

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Cassells for a most informative presentation. Like Deputy Charlie McConalogue, I would like to know what reports were available before the expert group began its work. There has been significant repetition, rightly so, in the first phase of its work in dealing with the role, value and scale of higher education. We already know this and could talk about it until the cows come home. In what way has the group used what was done before to colour what it is doing?

I accept that these issues need to be established, but we have established them 1,000 times at this stage. There has been a great deal of discussion about the philosophy of education and so on, but I want to know when we will get to the meat of the issues. Phase one really could have been completed in one day. A postgraduate or doctorate student of education could have given the expert group a document on the philosophy of education, why we needed it and why it was so important for our burgeoning young population. Why was so much time spent on that aspect of the work? I realise our demographics are unusual and that there is the context of the downturn and now an apparent semi-boom to consider. However, much of the work has already been done.

Mr. Cassells mentioned the reduction in higher education staff numbers during the downturn. Was that reduction in academic, teaching or administrative staff numbers and how did it feed into the issues about which he is talking? It is very interesting to note that one of the greatest contributions of students in each discipline is in the area of the humanities and the arts. That sector feeds into everything about which Mr. Cassells is talking - creativity, problem solving and team working - all of the great buzzwords. There has been no mention, however, of what the Government has done at second level, namely, given bonus points in higher mathematics and probably science next year but not, for example, in music and the visual arts. Most young people are opting for the arts, the humanities and languages at third level because they feed their creativity so much.

Mr. Cassells referred to graduates earning more than non-graduates. I know many graduates, however, who are walking the streets looking for work. Is Mr. Cassells referring to graduates who are working in Ireland? If so, in which areas are they earning more and what is the percentage difference, or is he talking about graduates who have taken an aeroplane out of the country?

Will Mr. Cassells indicate his view on apprenticeships? I am a great believer in apprenticeships and completely opposed to the apartheid system of education that has developed. Some people are of the view that everybody should go to university, but not everybody wants to do so. Apprenticeships have a great deal to offer. How does Mr. Cassells see the role of apprenticeships in the context of the broader higher education sector?

How does the quality of provision and the quality of graduates correlate with the qualifications of the third level lecturers who teach them? Is the expert group doing anything on the issue of the qualifications required by those who are moulding young minds, particularly in the liberal arts?

Why have we not, as other countries have done, identified the gaps, overlaps and creativities in our knowledge generation?

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Cassells for his presentation. I apologise for missing the start of it and for the fact that I will have to leave shortly to attend another meeting.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The delegates might not answer the Senator's questions if he is not present. I would not do so if I were them.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure they will be good enough to do so and that it will all be included in the Official Report.

Sinn Féin is opposed to the funding of higher education by way of student loans or graduate taxes. Does Mr. Cassells concur with that view? I am concerned that the current funding model is corporatising third level education. In the case of NUI Galway, for example, I am told that the model is having a knock-on effect on equality issues. Representatives of the Higher Education Authority, when they attended a meeting of the committee recently, indicated that this corporatisation was endemic across the sector. In a context in which large multinational companies are funding universities to a great extent, we are seeing a type of boys' club growing in the sector, with less of a focus on education and more on training people for jobs.

What recommendations will the expert group be making to eliminate wasteful spending within universities? We have heard examples of expenditure on taxis in certain third level institutions and other outrageous expense claims. Does Mr. Cassells have proposals in that regard?

One of the cuts that really irked me in recent years was the removal of supports for postgraduate students. This has meant that unless one has money in one's pocket, one cannot progress past undergraduate level. It was a very retrograde step. Will Mr. Cassells be recommending that this cut be reversed?

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegates and apologise for missing the start of the meeting. We had the Minister for Education and Skills in the Seanad and I did not want to miss the opportunity to ask her questions.

I very much liked Mr. Cassells's summary of the issues, particularly his outlining of four areas on which we should focus into the future. As other speakers noted, we have heard some of this before, but it is important to build on prior knowledge.

Regarding the apprenticeship model, I welcome the establishment by the Minister of a committee to examine the issue. Everybody does not learn in the same way and there are very high attrition rates in first year at higher level, especially in the first term. As I understand it, we are losing up to 30% of students from some courses, made up of 19% in institutes of technology and 11% in universities. The word "apprenticeship" is anathema to some in the universities. It seems to be a repulsive concept, with the attitude being that it is not for them. In other countries, by contrast, PhDs are being offered at apprenticeship level. When will we see that happen here? We must have an education system that is for everybody, not just those who have an aptitude for academic learning. We must open our minds in this regard. As Mr. Cassells noted, honours degree graduates earn 100% more than those without a degree. We must ensure there is equality of opportunity.

I concur with Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell on the teaching qualifications of lecturers. Part of the reason for the high attrition rates is that young people are not being reached by good teaching. Is there a basic HDip qualification for lecturers? If there is, I do not know about it. Does the expert group have plans in that regard?

The next issue I want to raise is a personal bugbear of mine because I have a child in this age group, as have many of my peers. Among the 17 and 18 year olds starting college each year, there is a wide variation in maturity levels. Once students turn 18 years, universities and institutes of technology do not give their parents information on how they are doing, even though the parents are paying the bills. Something must be tweaked in this regard. Once a student gets past the date of 30 October, fees kick in and if he or she subsequently realises he or she has made the wrong course choice and drops out, as so many do because of poor career guidance, low maturity levels and so on, the parents must pay the fees the following year if the student chooses to take a different course. We must do something about this. There must be more streamlined and effective communication between colleges, students and parents.

One of the four areas identified by Mr. Cassells was improving the employability of graduates. When I take the train or bus to Galway, I am sometimes approached by young people who want to talk about internships. Participants in JobBridge were paid an additional €50 per week, but a person had to be in receipt of social welfare payments to qualify. Many of these young people are not actually receiving any social welfare payment.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Senator focus on the issues we are discussing?

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am coming to the issue of employability. As Mr. Cassells said, practice opportunities are vital for graduates to build team-working and other skills on top of their qualifications. However, the internships being offered in many cases are not devised with the young person's development in mind and some of the participants end up feeling used and abused.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not really relevant to the funding of third level education.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is relevant to one of the areas identified by Mr. Cassells in his presentation.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has gone off topic somewhat.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are looking at the future of the higher education system. I am wondering, in that context, whether we might have guidelines for employers offering internships in order that everybody will believe he or she is benefiting from them. A good internship is a fantastic experience for those involved.

The Chairman might consider my next question to be a little off the point, but it is very relevant in Galway. NUI Galway has received a great deal of public funding during the years and developed a very fine campus, much of it built along the River Corrib by virtue of its location. Now, however, there is a bypass proposal for Galway which would see four routes passing through the campus.

Has Mr. Cassells a view on public money being undone in that way?

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will have to stop the Senator.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Those are my four questions. I thank the Chair for her indulgence.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And the committee's indulgence.

Brendan Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Peter Cassells and the secretariat for the presentation and congratulate them on the proposed structure of the work ahead of them. He has presented on the first phase and has outlined the work to be done on the other two phases. I am particularly hungry to get the other parts and would love to be talking about the final report at this stage. In terms of the current operational level of efficiency Mr. Cassells said the next paper will be available in June. As, I presume, some work has been done in that area, will he give the committee an early indication of the interim findings in regard to current efficiencies?

Averil Power (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have just one question as many of my questions have already been asked. I wish to ask about flexibility of delivery. We have a system whereby free fees are available for full-time undergraduate courses but no maintenance grants, as already mentioned, for postgraduates and part-time courses, so we have a very divided system compared with other countries which have much more flexibility. The system should be neutral to allow persons complete the undergraduate course by day or night and irrespective of how long it takes to complete it. If someone with a family is returning to education while working part-time, a course that may take four years full-time to complete could take six years on a more flexible system, but it might be the only way that person can get an undergraduate degree. The current system precludes that in terms of funding. Is that issue being looked at?

Catherine Byrne (Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being late but I have read the two papers. My wish is that everyone who want to should go to third level. My other wish is that most people would stay in the school system and complete the junior and leaving certificates before doing anything else. I am disappointed that Deputy Michael Conaghan has left because he had been very involved in education all through his life, especially where I live. He was very much the wise eyes and ears in the VEC college in Inchicore.

Many young people who had not gone through secondary school attended the VEC and came out with a great education which gave them stability. I am looking at my own life and listening to what has been said. I was an early school leaver. The reality is that at the time it was all about academics. It certainly was not about people's ability and capability. If it had been, I probably would have been an Olympic runner or would have done the long jump or many other things. I was interested to read the paper because for me an education is all about having a proper social life and fulfilment. Education gives people self-esteem, builds them up and makes them the person they did not think it was possible to be. I know many young people who left school early and have gone back to do projects. I have doubts about some of the projects being pursued.

Children would have been better off remaining in secondary school and completing the leaving certificate before pursuing some projects. Education is all about social class. In the past, the people who came from more affluent families would have gone to college while those from a lower education background did not but, thankfully, that is changing. I see that change right across my constituency. As parents have greater expectations for their children to continue in education, the SUSI grant is very important to them. The more people are educated, the better society is for everyone. People come out of it more rounded and are better able to cope with life. I agree with the Senator who said that not everyone who has a third level degree has a brilliant job. Many have had to leave the country. I was not here for the Union of Students in Ireland-----

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Union of Students in Ireland is the next delegation.

Catherine Byrne (Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will have a question for its representatives. I really believe in education. It is the route to allowing people have a good head start in life. I thank Mr. Cassells for the paper which was very interesting.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To wrap up on the questions, and I am not sure if we have time for a second round and many of my own questions were covered, but in looking at best practice in other countries, so far as I can see, most countries in Europe do not charge much for education, whereas in the markets it is totally different. It is not just the difference between options, it is differences in ideological choices. Will that issue be explored? If one is in a Scandinavian country versus-----

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hungary.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----exactly, there is an ideological basis as to why people from different countries would have different choices. Will that issue be considered in the report? The participation rate in third level was properly mapped with the Clancy reports but the last proper report only looked at 2004. The latest report by the HEA is only partial, it is not anything like the Clancy reports. They showed in 2004 that after the abolition of third level fees, every group increased its participation rate. We do not have figures after that period. The HEA information is not up to scratch as far as I can see. I am not criticising it but it has not done the job that used to be done and that is needed to get the full picture. I saw a report in the newspaper of an EU rating. Apparently it suggested that teaching was losing ground. Singapore was ranked first in The Sunday Timesbut there is a new EU rating. I understand it suggested that in Ireland, teaching was losing ground.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is right. It is the backfoot of administration.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it the quality of teaching?

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suppose it was flagging teaching as a priority-----

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And the evidence on it.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----in comparison with other things. I want to ask about apprenticeships. One could look at apprenticeship as totally different from third level or as part of the third level system. It has always been part of, say, the Dublin Institute of Technology. People can go from apprenticeship into third level and further education. Therefore it is important. Ballyfermot has a low participation rate at third level but that may be because Ballyfermot College of Further Education provides some third level qualifications.

Mr. Peter Cassells:

I thank the Chair, Deputies and Senators for the questions. I will respond to them as best I can. I am taking the questions as being the committee's identification of the key issues in terms of advice to us. This is an ongoing process and we need as much advice as possible from people as to what are the priorities. That brings me to the first question from Deputy McConalogue. In terms of the timeline for the final report, it is to be finished by the end of this year. The first phase was on the role and value of education. The second phase which will be around the effectiveness and efficiencies and how the current system operates. We will have a consultation paper towards the end of June and would certainly welcome an opportunity to come back to the committee, as Deputy Brendan Ryan said, to discuss it because it will raise many of the issues that were raised, such as where the reductions have occurred, the balance between lecturing and administration and the balance between teaching and research.

Perhaps I can link that back to the question asked.

Will there be recommendations or options in the final report? Implications for the options can depend on what countries one is examining. We were asked to do it by way of options but as a group we wanted these as implementable options. In a sense, it would have been easy to do this as a technical exercise and tell Oireachtas Members that these are the options they need to implement. However, we need to drill down into each of the options as to their advantages, disadvantages and how they might operate in an Irish context. An option that may be successful abroad may not operate in an Irish context. For example, Ireland’s demographics and growing population have a different implication and set of pressures for funding than in Germany where the population is falling. We need to drill down into all of that for Oireachtas Members so that when they come to make a decision on this, they have all this information. It will be as close to recommendations that one could get without our group declaring them to be recommendations.

A range of reports were done by the HEA, the Irish Universities Association and others over several years on the sustainability of the system and on demographics. Unfortunately, none of those reports pulled the whole thing together. The reason we started with phase 1 on the role, the value and the scale of third level education was to pull all these reports together to say this is the historical evolution of the higher education system, this is what it should be and its values. We had many discussions and arguments with the various groupings on this. We were clear that the value is both for a collective societal good and individual gain. The system has in a sense strayed into individual gain as opposed to society investing in a proper system.

We are now moving into the phase of examining the efficiencies and effectiveness of the system. This ties into the reduction in funding and the increase in student numbers with the impact on teaching quality. This will be dealt with it in some detail in the report. The question of the staff-student ratio, namely the numbers lecturers have to deal with, as well as the capacity for smaller group and one-to-one interaction, is having an impact on teaching quality. As Senator O’Donnell asked, the question that keeps on arising is does one professionalise the teaching aspect. In Australia, they have professionalised teaching with little involvement in research. Some groupings have argued for this with us while others have argued it should be teaching and research. Others argued there should be research-led teaching so that it is up-to-date with the most recent developments in an area. Others argued that those engaged in key research should be exempted from teaching. It is interesting that some of the top research people have said they want to teach because that is their whole raison d’êtrefor being involved.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course.

Mr. Peter Cassells:

We have had a detailed briefing on the whole area of online programmes and MOOCs, massive open online courses. There is a need for blended learning. In other words, how does one use the technology as it will never operate on its own in the delivery of and accessing higher education? It will also require significant investment. Some submissions argued technology would reduce costs and one would not need funding. In fact, all the information shows it would require significant investment. One will never be able to provide it in such a way that there is no blended interaction between teaching and that technology is an enabler that does not take over from what is happening.

We looked at various international models from systems that are wholly publicly funded, as in Norway for example, to systems where it is a contribution from the student and parents to systems where these contributions are underpinned by a loan system such as in Australia and the UK. We need to examine the advantages and disadvantages of these options but, equally, their applicability in an Irish context. It is useless if our group gives Oireachtas Members a set of options if they cannot see clearly the impact in an Irish context.

Senator Ó Clochartaigh raised the issue of loans and a graduate tax. Again, this is an issue which we will be examining but we do not have a view on it yet. Members would be highly critical of us if we submitted a report that did not consider the advantages and disadvantages of the various options. All of the options will be examined but I cannot say at this stage how they might float. For example, the loans issue has much wider implications than what we can say about the repayment or level of those loans. If the State provides it, then one is into significant borrowing. That would that be an issue in an Irish context. Do we add significantly to our national debt to establish such a system? These are the issues which we must probe and, due to their complexity, is why it has taken us time to come up with implementable options.

The issue of wasteful spending was also raised. We are looking at the effectiveness of income streams, expenditure, workloads and the regional provision of different programmes in the next phase. We will also be examining postgraduate grants and part-time education. I was on the group which came up with the national strategy for higher education. One of the key elements around that was the flexibility of access and being able to enter the system through any route, whether it was through an apprenticeship and moving up, or further education and moving indirectly, or another stage in life.

There was also the need to ensure there was equity in terms of how everybody was treated. I know that from personal experience as I had to access higher education through the part-time route. In the report we will address both the costs involved and how those costs could be met.

On the question of apprenticeships, on one level one could argue that as an expert group on future funding of higher education, we must deal with issues from the viewpoint of funding, but the reason we have raised this issue in the first report is that demographics alone and the young population are driving a 30% increase in the numbers who want to avail of post leaving certificate opportunities, let us call it tertiary education. One cannot have a situation where the only route, not only from the point of view of funding but from what is right, would be to go straight to university or to an institute of technology. A strategy and a policy has been and is being developed on apprenticeships and another for further education. The point being made, which is crucially important, is the traditional view of apprenticeships as being in the crafts area versus apprenticeships in a range of areas across the spectrum of higher apprenticeships and also to industrial degrees, as they are called in Denmark. In other words that one can take apprenticeship training up to degree level and, as the Senator mentioned, up to PhD level.

A question was asked about NUIG and the bypass. I think the Senator will accept that I will bypass that for the moment. The reason I am responding to it is that we will be looking at the issue of capital expenditure, in other words if one takes the whole question of expenditure on infrastructure in our institutes of technology and universities, where will the expenditure come from and what is needed? What are the future requirements and how would one source the funding for the future requirements?

The issue of infrastructure will come up.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Cassells did not address the question of qualifications of the lecturers. When he spoke about professionalising them, is that what he meant?

Mr. Peter Cassells:

I am not saying we have come to any conclusion on this issue. A national teaching and learning forum has been established for the first time and I know the HEA probably went through that process with members when they met the committee. The HEA is developing the whole area of teaching in some detail and supporting the whole teaching area.

I did not mention that during the consultation, people had drawn our attention to the fact that in some countries there is a professionalisation of teaching and qualifications and had indicated that we should look a this. I am not saying we will be looking at everything because we have to be very careful. We are looking at the funding and how future funding requirements will be financed but we are using the opportunity of that to see how the funding as it were can influence, incentivise or change the way things are done. We are approaching it from that direction and managing to stay within our terms of reference. Obviously if we are saying there should be more money for teaching, the obvious question is to ask for our view on how it is done at present.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issue of the 18 year olds.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, Senator Healy Eames. I call Senator Marie Louse O'Donnell.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was only referring to questions that were asked and have not been answered.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring the Senator in on the second round.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The area of apprenticeship is being developed. I think apprenticeships are third level. The idea that to be academic one lives in one's head and that is the only way one can judge academia is ridiculous. The Chairman mentioned ideologies and boundaries, but my general question is whether the Expert Group on Future Funding for Higher Education is to be allowed to stray into the area of apprenticeships and make recommendations? I would have felt that many of the universities capitulated to the great technology companies, Google, and the banking system of education when they said they would give an additional 25 points to mathematics but would not give it to music. We will create a hierarchy of subjects. Does Mr. Cassells see his role as having a place there?

Of the 11 members on the expert group, some 15% come from health and welfare, but none of the medical schools, that is, UCC, UCG, UL, RCSI or Trinity College is represented.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to repeat my question on internships. Mr. Cassells spoke about the employability of graduates. Will he comment on guidelines on internships and the usefulness of them, and also on the fact that some young people drop out of college, but if there was communication to parents, perhaps fees would not be lost?

Mr. Peter Cassells:

I will deal with apprenticeships and, to use Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell's phrase, whether we are allowed to stray into that area. No, we are a funding group but the way in which we have raised the issue, highlighted it in the consultation paper and will highlight it in the final report is that we have pulled together all the demographic information we can find. This shows with the current participation rates in universities and IoTs there would be a 30% increase in the next 15 years. We think that would be a significant funding requirement, but we should not put it down to the funding requirements for those two sectors as we need to look at the other outlets for people-----

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deserving to be considered as important

Mr. Peter Cassells:

The other outlets emerged as apprenticeships, further education, post leaving certificate opportunities. That is the reason we are saying that it should be beyond the traditional apprenticeships. A working group has reported to the Department on that and a strategy has been developed. We have not been asked to consider apprenticeships but we are saying that in looking at the funding requirements we need to be able to comment on that.

In terms of the composition of the group, I was asked to chair it and the other members of the group were invited by the Minister and others to participate in it. I am not commenting on how other groups have approached this, but we are engaged in extensive consultation, as we are here today, with all of the different groupings, including the universities and the medical schools. For this reason, and it is a point I made previously, we want to develop a shared understanding as to how these things will be funded and happen

We will have to consult with bodies, for example if one has a charge or fees for different programmes and courses, does one grade it depending on the future earnings that might emerge from the particular profession under consideration?

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Another apartheid.

Mr. Peter Cassells:

We need to be able to close off that option by showing the advantages and disadvantages because if we do not, people will say that we did not look at all of the possibilities that were before us.

The reason we raised the issue of employability, and it came from an earlier question around career guidance, was our concern around the need for the universities and the IoTs to be investing in good high quality career guidance and student supports. That is essential. It would include looking at the question of internships and the competencies and capabilities one needs for the modern labour market.

It is not just the particular discipline in which one has one's qualification, but critical thinking, communications, team working and all those competencies are emerging increasingly as being crucial.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will draw this item to a close because representatives of USI will make a presentation on a related matter. As has been suggested it would be good to have the witness attend at different stages. I thank them for today's contribution which has been very informative for the committee. We look forward to having them back again.