Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the House on the subject of further and higher education. Everyone in the country relies to a greater or lesser extent on our education system. Generally, the public is very clear on the role played by primary and secondary schools, and increasingly by the third level education sector. However, it may be less clear on the importance of the further education sector.

While this should be challenged, unfortunately the Government has not fully recognised the potential offered by the further education sector. Instead of concentrating on ways to support the development of the further education sector, previously the principal concern has been to cap places on PLC courses which restricts access to further education and affects funding to further education colleges.

In 2003, the Government was presented with a report on further education, namely, the McIver report. As the Minister is aware, the report was commissioned by the Department of Education and Science. The Mclver report envisaged further education as a distinct sector in the education system operating under a council of further education colleges, with enhanced staffing and information technology provisions. The report also envisaged education being facilitated both at college and in other locations, as well as through a mixture of distance learning and attendance at centres. This is crucial in terms of accessibility, particularly for regions which do not have ready access to other educational institutions.

Importantly, from the perspective of access to education, the McIver report looks forward to a time when further education colleges will have the teaching capacity to deliver courses all year round from morning to evening and at weekends. What better way to make our colleges real living active environments and to get the best value for money from our buildings and campuses, than by ensuring that our institutions are used as much as possible?

Further education plays a particularly important role in bringing educational opportunity to thousands of people every year throughout the country. As the Minister is aware, a higher percentage of mature students return to education through the VEC and PLC route, gaining valuable qualifications that enable them to return to the workplace or to change employment. In addition, the further education sector can devise new courses at short notice, providing training to people in business-related skills that change constantly and which may be needed in a particular locality. However, to do so properly, the further education sector needs greater flexibility, funding, autonomy and support. None of the extra funding announced in the last budget went towards the implementation of the recommendations of the McIver report. This was a huge disappointment, and a missed opportunity.

The colleges of further education also require a far higher level of technical expertise. While they have received funding for technical equipment, which is welcome, they struggle to maintain this equipment or to fix any difficulties encountered, without suitably qualified staff. In addition, staff at colleges of further education are employed on the same contracts as teachers at second level schools. This contract structure is not suitable, as further education colleges require a different staffing structure as their remit is so substantially different to second level education. Further education must also be put on a statutory basis.

The colleges of further education are anxious that the recommendations of the McIver report be implemented in full. However, many further education colleges recognise that this is not an "all or nothing" situation. This is also true of the many groups which I have met which represent those who teach in such colleges. They wish to meet the Minister and her departmental officials to discuss a staggered implementation programme for these recommendations, with a view to eventually having the report fully implemented.

The Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy de Valera, has stated she is in consultation with representatives of the further education sector. I have questioned her in the House a number of times in this regard, as has Deputy O'Sullivan, as I have heard otherwise from the colleges and representative groups. I ask both the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, and the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy de Valera, to engage with the representatives of the colleges to discuss the McIver recommendation — which could be implemented now — to draw up a plan for short to medium term implementation and for full implementation in the longer term. This sector has grown and risen on its own initiative. One could almost state that this originally took place more by accident than by design. It has grown without major planning on the part of the Department of Education and Science. However, if the sector is to go further, it now requires greater input from the Department. To conclude my remarks as they relate to further education, action to support the further education sector should be taken and the development of the sector should be underpinned by implementing the recommendations of the McIver report.

For Ireland's future success, it is widely acknowledged that education will be critical. This involves investment in education at all levels which will bear fruit in terms of later engagement in further and higher education. In 2004, the OECD produced a report which recommended change in a number of areas at third level. This report indicated, inter alia, that Ireland's investment in the education system as a whole is lower than the OECD average. In public expenditure it ranks only 25th of 30 OECD countries. Between 1995 and 2000 public expenditure declined from 4.7% to 4.1% of gross domestic product. Expenditure per student in tertiary education is also below the OECD average, with Ireland ranking 14th of 26 countries. Moreover, Irish expenditure on research and development as a proportion of GDP is well below EU and OECD averages. However, I acknowledge the changes announced in the budget last December in this respect. Worryingly, the proportion of mature students entering higher education is still extremely low. Great disparities exist in the third level participation of students from families of different socio-economic backgrounds. These are some of the findings of the OECD report which should be borne in mind in this debate.

In addition, we must be mindful that as children and young people are lost from the education system at primary and secondary level, the potential for their later engagement in third level education is severely restricted. Making better universities and institutes of technology requires a multipronged approach. Not only will we be obliged to focus on funding at third level as well as reforms of management and research, we must also tackle the problem of disadvantage much earlier in the education cycle.

There is still an unhealthy imbalance within our education system which stymies the personal development and future career prospects of thousands of children born into families with financial constraints or in disadvantaged areas. By failing to support all children who might have the wish or talent to proceed to third level but who need greater State intervention to achieve this, our society squanders their talents in an entirely arbitrary manner.

Educational research published in late 2005 showed that some schools have a 60% drop-out rate. In addition, the leaving certificate retention rate for those entering school in 1996 declined when compared with the 1994 cohort. The Government has a clear responsibility to increase the numbers finishing school and has made commitments under the Lisbon Agenda to make this happen. However, children drop out even before entering second level schooling. Currently, more than 1,000 children do not even make the transition from primary to secondary school. This reflects a sharp increase in recent years. This is particularly important, as at second level we can at least infer that some who do not complete their leaving certificate go on to apprenticeships or into employment. However, the 1,000 children who do not make the transition from primary level is more worrying, because they obviously do not enter legal employment. There is also a sharp urban-rural divide in terms of retention rates to leaving certificate level. The retention rates in Dublin city of 69%, and in Limerick city of72.9%, are far behind those of Mayo and Westmeath, which have rates of 84.6%, and Roscommon, which has a rate of 85.9%.

I am also deeply concerned at the gender gap in school completion, where only 72.1% of males staying on for the leaving certificate compared with 83.3% of females. This is a gap that must be bridged. Otherwise large numbers of young men will continue to enter adulthood with greatly diminished opportunities. The failure to finish school and the growing problem of the number of children failing to make the transition from primary to secondary education impacts considerably on their later engagement with third level or further education.

How are we meeting the needs of children with special educational requirements? Some 50% of the primary schools still have no access to the National Educational Psychological Service. What chances have children being left behind in primary school of going on to college, university or further education?

Returning to the OECD report, it is fair to say that this report underestimated the role of the humanities in higher education. In planning for the future in higher education, we must avoid the trap into which perhaps it would be easy to fall of considering higher education simply as an economic means to an end. The role of the humanities must still be an integral part of the higher education system and must be valued on an equal footing. This point, while acknowledged by the OECD report, was not put forward in any detail and was to some extent glossed over by it. We must be in no doubt that higher education in all disciplines is always worthwhile.

As well as education being a pathway through which knowledge is transmitted, recent reports from the Royal Irish Academy also recognise the need for knowledge to be created. This is also fundamental for the future development of higher education in Ireland and when it comes to research activity, Irish third level institutions compete, not only on a national and European stage but on an international stage.

I welcome the fact that in the recent budget the Minister for Finance finally started to recognise the importance of fourth level education. This is crucial. I can only ask that the Government, the PRTLI, Science Foundation Ireland and the research councils be brave in their approach to research. It is crucial to the development of this country and to the fostering of a thinking entrepreneurial society.

The Government should make a clear statement also that any moneys raised privately by third level institutions will not be offset by a lower contribution from the Exchequer. This is of considerable importance. This statement would ensure that universities and institutes of technology would continue to possess an incentive to raise moneys and would not feel that being more successful at fund-raising would result in a cut in their Exchequer funding. Will the Minister for Education and Science consult her colleague, the Minister for Finance on this issue?

I also welcome the strategic innovation fund which was announced as part of the 2006 budget and which the Minister dealt with in this debate. She outlined the key objectives of the fund and mentioned that the criteria for competitiveness awards under the fund would place a core emphasis on promoting inter-institutional collaboration to build world class strength within the system. Will the Minister come back to the House at a later stage with examples of exactly how she intends this fund to work?

See this speech in context