Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle's office for selecting this issue.

My concerns centre on the difficulties being experienced by graduates of business courses who are applying to study professional diplomas in education but who cannot receive the back to education allowance. This is due to a higher points threshold imposed upon them by the Postgraduate Applications Centre since 2006. This was introduced due to the high demand of business graduates for places on PDEs. The requirement effectively demands that business students have a master's qualification in order to reach the required number of points to qualify for the postgraduate diploma in education. However, this has implications for one's eligibility for the back to education allowance as the same students are ultimately seeking to study for postgraduate diploma in education, which is a lesser qualification than a master's degree. This goes against the principle of progression and therefore renders the students ineligible for their payment. It defeats the purpose intended by the Government, as many prospective PDE students, once they realise they cannot receive the back to education allowance, are deciding not to pursue the course, as it is financially unviable for them to do so.

This is fundamentally wrong. We are meant to be encouraging people to return to education with a view to upskilling, acquiring further training and gaining employment in future. To cite an example, with business graduates this year required to have 53 points to qualify for the postgraduate diploma in education, it is impossible for such graduates to secure a place without a masters degree because 45 points is the maximum awarded for a first class honours primary degree. Therefore, even when one factors in the five points awarded for work experience, business graduates still fall short of the 53 points required.

I fully understand that the progression principle is in place to ensure displacement does not occur and I accept that courses should not be offered to students who are not progressing at a cost to students progressing from a lower level. However, business students are being disproportionately affected by the progression rule. For this reason, I ask the Minister to review the position to ensure business students are not penalised.

I draw attention to two significant and noteworthy points. First, the Government, through the Teaching Council, insists that everyone who pursues a teaching career must have a postgraduate diploma in education, PDE. In other words, the only way to secure employment in teaching is through the PDE process. Second, this requirement is affecting a larger cohort of students than ever because of the massive swell in the number of unemployed people seeking to return to education. As I outlined, it is Government policy to return people to the classroom to upskill and engage in further training.

A further difficulty is the absence of clarity at departmental level as to which Department is responsible for rectifying this administrative difficulty. I have pursued this issue in recent months with the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Social Protection. The former is responsible for the postgraduate applications centre which made the decision in 2006 to impose a higher points threshold on business graduates. As I noted, this decision was taken in response to the large number of applicants for the course. The Department of Social Protection, on the other hand, is responsible for the back to education allowance.

The Department has pointed out in its statement of conditions applying that the scheme is not statutorily based and decisions on eligibility are made at its discretion. This means there is scope to accommodate business students who find themselves trapped in this administrative quagmire and who are ultimately discouraged from returning to the classroom. The scheme, as administered, is flawed as it disproportionately affects business graduates and acts as a disincentive to education when we should be making every reasonable effort to get people back into education and training.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy McCarthy for raising this important issue. The back to education allowance, BTEA, scheme is a second chance education opportunity scheme designed to remove the barriers to participation in second and third level education by enabling eligible people on certain social welfare payments to continue to receive a payment while pursuing an approved full-time education course that leads to a higher education than that already held. The number of participants engaged with the BTEA has grown steadily in recent years. As of 31 December 2011, provisional figures indicate in the region of 25,700 participants are engaged with the scheme in the 2011-12 academic year, which is an increase on the previous year. In the 2010-11 academic year, the scheme attracted 25,032 participants, an increase of 20% on the previous year when there were 20,808 participants. The 2009-10 academic year, which was when the recession began to bite, saw a dramatic increase in participation of 79% on the previous year. Provisional expenditure on the back to education allowance scheme in 2011 was €200 million. An estimate of €183 million has been provided for the scheme in 2012.

A person wishing to pursue the back to education allowance scheme will have to satisfy a number of conditions, such as being of a certain age, receiving a prescribed social welfare payment for a specified period, pursuing a full-time course of study leading to a recognised qualification in a recognised college and progressing in the level of education held by the client with reference to the national framework of qualifications, among other matters. The BTEA scheme covers a large range of full-time courses of education in approved colleges spanning basic foundation courses to third level courses across all disciplines. The back to education allowance is available to eligible persons in pursuit of a professional diploma in education, which was previously known as the graduate diploma in education or higher diploma, in any discipline - level 8 in the national framework of qualifications. Other postgraduate qualifications - levels 9 and 10 - are not included.

BTEA guidelines are in the main in line with the mechanisms in place for student support type schemes administered by the Department of Education and Skills. State support for education purposes is grounded on a student progressing from one qualification level to a higher qualification level. This is necessary to ensure displacement does not occur in that courses could be offered to students who are not progressing at the cost of students progressing from a lower education level. It should be noted that of the 25,032 participants supported through BTEA in the 2010-11 academic year, 43% pursued second level courses. It is sometimes overlooked that many of those returning to education are completing second level.

My officials inform me, following discussion with officials from the Department of Education and Skills, that the Postgraduate Applications Centre Limited was established in 1998 to centrally process and assess applications to postgraduate diploma in education courses. A common points system was devised and it has been used since. Applicants apply to the Postgraduate Applications Centre online and their applications are centrally assessed by a team of assessors.

In 2006, a decision was taken, owing to the large numbers of applicants with business related degrees, to impose a cap on business type degrees. To this end, a 10% allocation was introduced. This decision was taken to ensure an adequate supply of post-primary teachers for all subject areas and avoid an oversupply of teachers of business subjects. Since the demand for places from graduates with business related degrees is high and the number of places available capped, the point scores tend to be higher than for other degrees. I am not in a position to comment on entry requirements or thresholds associated with this specific course or any other course as the matter is not within my remit. The issue of points is one for my colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills. I do not know if Deputy McCarthy has been around the Houses with the Minister on this issue.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister and respectfully note that her reply sums up the difficulty I have outlined. The reply includes five paragraphs dealing with the back to education allowance. I am familiar with the detail of the scheme and the eligibility criteria for the allowance. However, the response does not address the administrative quagmire I described. The final paragraph, in which the Minister refers me to the Minister for Education and Skills, sums up the difficulty I face. I have been over and back between the two Departments for several weeks. The difficulty I highlighted is that if applicants are to achieve the required points, they must have a masters degree while those with a masters degree are not eligible for the back to education allowance.

I will not forward a copy of the Minister's reply to the person who asked me to raise this matter because it is a bureaucratic response that describes the current system but fails to address the administrative quagmire I have described. I have been in touch with the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Social Protection on this matter. The specific case I raise is a typical example of an issue that falls between two stools. The conditions attached to a scheme in one Department have resulted in an individual failing to meet the criteria set by another Department. What is required is a ministerial decision. As the criteria are not statutorily based, there is room for discretion. I will pursue this matter further because the response does not address the anomaly I have raised and runs counter to the spirit of Government policy, that is, to get people back into the classroom.

I want to see movement on this issue because the case I raise is not an isolated one. There are bound to be others who are being prevented from availing of reasonable entitlements as a result of bureaucratic anomalies arising from two Departments having a role in one broad area.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate the dilemma and the almost catch-22 in regard to the points qualification and the anomaly Deputy McCarthy raised. He will appreciate that the role of the Department of Social Protection, in supporting students on the back to education allowance, is income support. We do not get involved in the technical educational qualification side of it because that is not our competence but rather that of the Department of Education and Skills. The Deputy referenced the Teaching Council also.

I accept there is a problem here and I would be happy to pursue it with the Minister for Education and Skills. I would like to make another suggestion. There is now an Oireachtas Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education, although I do not know if the Deputy is a member of it.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps that committee could look at this.

There are 25,700 participants on back to education. Some 43% of them are in second level while the majority are in third level. The cost is very high. We spent €200 million last year and we will spend €183 million this year. As the Deputy identified, it is money well spent if people move on to employment but we have a limited budget. It would be dishonest of me if I did not say that we are in a very tight budgetary situation. I will certainly ask my officials to raise this with the Department of Education and Skills but I think the Deputy hinted at part of the solution himself, that is, to reference the Teaching Council and how it came up with the specific points requirement it has which, in a way, constitutes the difficulty. As I suggested, perhaps the joint committee might offer some scope to bring the different parties together.