Mature students: an examination of DIT’s
policy and practice
| Show/
hide article menu (click icons opposite) |
 |
 |
|
|
Current issues
Recent developments
That lifelong learning has become a Government priority can be seen
from the level of activity in the last few years. In 2000, a White
Paper was published setting out priorities in the area (Department
of Education, 2000). While dealing with more than higher-level
education, it confirmed the finding of earlier reports that there
very serious barriers to participation being faced by mature students.
It promised equality of access and a systematic approach to educational
provision, and action on the part-time/full-time fee anomalies.
A targeted, higher-education, mature-student fund, to reach at least
€12.7m ‘to enable third-level institutions to make innovative
strategic shifts towards adult-friendly policies’ was proposed.
In September 2000, Minister for Education and Science Dr Michael
Woods set up an action group on access to third level education
under the chairmanship of Dr Cormac McNamara. Its role was to advise
the department on the development of a co-ordinated framework to
promote access by mature and disadvantaged students to third-level
education. This group reported in May 2001, and called for the establishment
of a national office for equity of access to higher education within
the HEA (Action
Group, 2001). It found particular fault with the piecemeal approach
currently being taken:
The work is uncoordinated. It lacks cataloguing, and there
is no structure to take responsibility for identification and dissemination
of best practice. On an individual level, many disadvantages students
are still unable to access third-level places or sustain participation
in college, even though they receive significant supports; the supports
available may be the wrong mix in their individual circumstances,
or it may simply be substantial but inadequate.
A number of very specific recommendations in relation to mature
students were made, including: the broadening, simplification and
coordination of the procedures for entry; evaluation and improvement
of guidance services; improvements in financial support; and provision
of childcare facilities. In particular, the report endorsed the
setting up of a targeted higher-education mature-student fund, and
the setting aside of at least 15% of places for mature students.
The HEA itself has become a vocal supporter of increased access
to third-level education for mature students. Among their recent
initiatives are:
- In their submission to the Action Group on Access to Third
Level Education, they have proposed a national programme aimed
at addressing inequality of access to higher education, and a
dedicated equality office to be set up to draw up the policy outline
and oversee the implementation of that programme.
- In December 2000 they began research into the demand for places
among potential mature students (Action
Group, 2001). This involves surveying all 1999/2000 applicants
for full-time undergraduate places (both successful and unsuccessful),
for part-time places and participants in access courses in order
to get a profile of these groups and make recommendations to improve
the provision being made for them (Hayden,
2001).
The taskforce
A taskforce on lifelong learning was established in 2000 by the
Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and of Education
and Science. Its report was published in 2002, and its remit included
access throughout life to formal third-level education, but went
beyond this to include all aspects of the ‘interrelationship
between employability and social inclusion’ and a wish ‘to
promote and develop active citizenship’ (Taskforce
on Lifelong Learning, 2002). The Taskforce noted a number of
key issues which are of relevance to mature students at third level,
and set up a subgroup to look at the whole area of ‘Access/Barriers
to Lifelong Learning’. They found in common with other sources
already referred to that ‘the current fragmentation of information
is a serious block to Lifelong Learning’ and they recommended
both information provision and guidance.
The NQAI
In 2001 the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI)
was set up with two principal tasks: to establish and maintain a
national framework of qualifications and to promote and facilitate
access, transfer and progression (NQAI,
2003a, NQAI, 2003b). Among the groups identified by the Authority
who ‘in the past had limited access to education and training
awards’ are ‘those with limited levels of basic education,
mature learners, older learners, learners who are unemployed or
not in the labour force, workers in unskilled or low-skilled occupations,
people with disabilities, those living in remote or isolated locations,
members of the Traveller community or minority ethnic groups, and
refugees’ (ibid,
p. 6). The Authority acknowledges that the current structure
does not accommodate these groups well and that achieving its objectives
will require ‘many significant changes in the systems and
structures of Irish education and training’ (NQAI,
2003a, p. 2).
Equality legislation
The setting of a target ‘quota’ of 15% mature entrants
by 2005 is an example of affirmative action, and as such is open
to scrutiny. This paper does not detail the difficulties associated
with affirmative action, other than to note that there are many
arguments for and against. In fact many affirmative-action initiatives
have been rolled back, notably in the US where the Bakke decision
of 1978 allowing quotas under certain conditions has been overturned
by Hopwood vs. State of Texas (1996), and the decision of the University
of California to end special access (Gallagher,
2002). Recently these issues have again been raised in the US
Supreme Court where two separate affirmative action policies of
the University of Michigan were ruled on. The court held that a
process that allocated 20 extra points on a 150-point scale to undergraduate
applicants from minority races was unconstitutional (Reid,
2003); but that a system for assessing graduate applicants to
the law school which used race as a factor was constitutional because
‘student body diversity was a compelling state interest’
(Reuters,
2003).
It would not be unimaginable that in a scenario where 15% of places
were reserved for mature applicants, unsuccessful ‘standard’
applicants would take recourse to the courts. In this regard it
is important that the proponents of affirmative-action schemes can
explain how affirmative action differs from ‘arbitrary’,
and therefore unfair, discrimination. However, it is possible that
even a robust defence of the principles of affirmative action might
not be sufficient in the context of the Equal Status Act of 2000.
The Act deals with discrimination outside the employment context,
including education, provision of goods, services and accommodation,
and disposal of property, and outlaws discrimination on the same
nine grounds as those covered by the Employment Equality Act (1998)
detailed above (Department
of Justice, 2002). While many of the cases taken so far have
been of the expected type – members of the travelling community
who were refused access to public houses for example – a number
of unexpected cases have also been taken. Among these is the case
where a parent, objecting to a public house insisting that children
be off the premises after a certain time, took a case under the
age-discrimination section of the Act. It is not inconceivable that
this legislation might be used to challenge quotas for mature students.
|
