John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

These statements are particularly appropriate at this time, given the recent publication by the Equality Authority of its report, Inequality and the Stereotyping of Young People. I want to put on record my commendation of the work of Mary Cunningham, director of the National Youth Council of Ireland and Niall Crowley, CEO of the Equality Authority. The greatest gratitude must be to Maurice Devlin, author of the report, and the young people, youth groups and workers who comprised the focus groups.

I will preface my contribution with a quote from the report:

Sometimes the young people drew an explicit parallel between media stereotypes and how politicians saw young people. There was a view that politicians themselves, in the ways they sometimes talked about young people and the issues they highlighted, were both responding to media stereotyping and helping to fuel it.

If Members of this House are to achieve just one positive outcome from the statements, I urge that at least today, in this House, no politician rises to his or her feet and reinforces, even inadvertently, a stereotype of young people. As the report points out, we can do this accidentally just by discussing the issues, even when we are trying to be helpful. Stereotypes, whether of people being anti-social or less intelligent, are just plain wrong. Before anyone is tempted to list certain qualities of young people, be warned. The report also tells us how stereotypes can attribute positive qualities to an entire group, for example, "the warmth and charm of the Irish" or, in the case of young people, "the idealism of youth". Members might think that, on the face of it, this is harmless enough. However, it represents a simplification of a complex social reality. It is often patronising and may in fact be disempowering.

This preface brings me to the substantial issue I wish to highlight during my few minutes, which is stereotyping in education, in particular the post-leaving certificate sector. One stereotype that may damage the entire sector is that further education and PLC courses exist simply for disadvantaged students. It is crass and uninformed. Worst of all, it may actually contribute to what the Progressive Democrats and I see as PLC courses becoming the "Cinderella" of our education system.

Let us look at the reality versus the stereotype. There were 18,000 enrolments in PLC courses ten years ago. Now the number exceeds 30,000 — more than the annual number of school leavers entering third level education. A network of more than 250 centres deliver PLC courses the length and breadth of this country. They are operating in the vocational, secondary and community school sector, with the majority in vocational colleges. They provide over 1,000 courses in more than 60 disciplines. The stereotype is that today's 30,000 students are in some way only "settling" for these courses, settling for second best and that for whatever reason they did not achieve, or succeed in, their preferred choice of education. I repeat that we cannot allow crass and uninformed stereotypes to persist.

Many students express first preferences for PLC courses. Many people such as young people or women, and I am consciously not stereotyping here, may seek specific training or retraining, or another educational experience. They may seek an educational experience that has a specific focus on work. The problem is not just that young people, and others for that matter who undertake PLC courses, are being stereotyped, but that the stereotype may in some way shape the treatment of the sector. That treatment has, frankly, been less than satisfactory over the past 20 years.

Even though PLC courses developed in the late 1980s, it took some 15 years for the recognition that very significant resources were needed to support the great and valuable service being delivered. It took some 15 years for a report to be commissioned that would make appropriate recommendations to support the great and valuable service being delivered. I am referring of course to the McIver report. Further education centres were originally intended to accommodate student populations much smaller than they have become. We also know that the funding structure was designed for second level, not to meet the needs of today's vibrant further education sector.

Despite being commissioned by the Department of Education and Science in 2002 to review the further education sector, McIver Consulting's recommendations remain unimplemented. Just look at some of the findings. McIver said the administrative, management, staffing and ancillary support structures for the PLC sector continue to be those designed for second level. The facilities, the number and size of the classrooms, the laboratories and work spaces are unfit for the purposes of the PLC sector. The average floor space of further education centres must be doubled. Library resources are inadequate, and there are too few computers. Many have no computer facilities available to students outside class time. The catering facilities in more colleges are inadequate, and staff numbers are too low. The sector needs more librarians and guidance and career counsellors; I could go on.

The findings and recommendations were published three years ago, and the Government accepted them, moving one to wonder what the problem is. My party has made specific inquiries about progress on implementing the recommendations of the McIver review. Regrettably, the reply merely confirms that progress on helping the PLC sector is listless.

Statements on the sector are filled with statistics on how popular PLC courses are, but they do not reflect the State's commitment to the sector. The increasing numbers of students enrolled must be matched by increased funding. In contrast, the 2006 Estimates make little or no reference to specific and increased funding for schools and colleges providing post-leaving certificate courses. The McIver report was published almost three years ago, and today the recommendations are still being prioritised and the implications considered. My party has called for intermatching on the McIver report recommendations, and I restate that call today.

The Equality Authority's report states that stereotypes of a group such as young people held by a society have an impact on how all its members are viewed and treated and on their status. Many young people engage with the PLC sector. Further education in the PLC sector is not correctly viewed or treated by society, and its proper status is not accorded. The message must be that we should forget the stereotype, since there is now an indisputable case for the further education and PLC sector to be treated as separate and distinct from compulsory schooling, not simply for young people but for all who pursue their education in that valuable and important sector.