UCC Response – HEA Consultation Paper UCC broadly welcomes the contents of the consultation paper which describes a new National Plan for Equity of Access to Higher Education. The paper refers to education as a ‘human right to personal development’ and ‘investment in education is perhaps unique in having the potential to impact generations to come’ (p.5). These statements are welcome and suggest that there is recognition that the Access agenda must therefore be adequately funded so that the cycle of disadvantage is broken. The previous plan expired in 2013 and access offices have been operating in something of a vacuum since then. The inclusion of access targets in strategic plans and the recently introduced HEA compact agreement has ensured that institutional focus on access has been maintained; we now welcome firmer targets and sharper focus at a national level. UCC supports the recommendations for setting measurable and ambitious targets. However, we are very concerned that on-going reduction in national access funding is starkly at odds with these ambitions. Operational budgets and ESF/SAF funding has also been significantly reduced. In the current academic year, UCC is delivering support services to an increasing number of access students with a significantly reduced access budget, in line with the national reduction of 17%. Our existing work in this area is not sustainable with such levels of funding. Whilst we continue to attract an increasing number of students from underrepresented groups, our ability to support their progression, retention and success is being undermined by reduction in levels of resource. UCC supports the suggested data driven approach with clear targets, measures and alignment of funding. We would, however, recommend the development of qualitative measures to complement the quantitative key performance indicators. The student journey is a subjective, lived experience and the development of case studies through appropriate research methodology would aid our collective understanding. Where possible, this should include a longitudinal study which tracks students from second to third level, and include rich case studies in different contexts. Universities and Institutes of Technology provide different educational contexts and it is important for differences to be acknowledged and understood. This additional understanding is important in the context of national ‘average’ which have the potential to mask a wide range of opportunities, challenges and barriers to participation in higher education. 1.

Despite progress, some groups are not accessing Higher Education, to the same degree as other groups. Why do you think that is and what supports your view? 1.1 Lack of Support for students with disabilities who wish to pursue part time programmes in Higher Education Some students with disabilities are not accessing Higher Education, as the current system of funding does not support part time participation. The Fund for Students with Disabilities does not allow for part-time students and therefore Higher Education Institutions find it difficult to support the needs of these students, as there is not a funding stream to facilitate their support requirements. The provision of supports such as ISL interpretation is a drain on the funds available to Disability Services, especially at a time when there are reductions in the Access budgets available in Higher Education. However, the part time option may be the only route for some students with disabilities, as pursuing full time degree programmes would not be a feasible option due to implications of disability.

1

1.2 Numbers of students with physical and sensory disabilities accessing Higher Education are still low The number of students with physical and sensory disabilities are not accessing higher education in line with current census data for these cohorts. Despite the success of DARE as a supplementary admission process the access of students with physical and sensory disabilities to Higher Education is still low in comparison to other cohorts. According to AHEAD data (2013), the numbers of Blind and Vision Impaired students accessing Higher Education is falling (At 191, participation of Blind and Vision Impaired students to Higher Education has dropped by 0.2%, AHEAD 2013). 1.3 It would appear that there are two streams of students with disabilities completing second level education, those that enter Higher Education on merit and do not require a DARE reduced points place and those who do not achieve the grades to matriculate and therefore cannot access a place in Higher Education. In this regard, the support in second level education needs to be addressed, as there is no standardisation of supports or equal access to training and provision of Assistive Technology. While the numbers of students with disabilities in Higher Education is increasing, a significant number still do not matriculate and we in UCC believe that this is directly representational to the numbers that do not have adequate support in second level, access to the curriculum or Assistive Technology. DARE and AHEAD data supports this view as does the DARE analysis conducted by UCC since 2008. 1.4 Further research is required to understand what the barriers are for students with disabilities in second level and also the numbers of students who do not matriculate each year and what the outcomes are for such students. 1.5 For mature students, access to financial support is the biggest barrier at the moment – it is becoming more difficult to access funding and decisions are taking too long, leading to students finding themselves ‘in limbo’ or having to withdraw late in a semester / year and thus being subject to paying part/full fees if they return to college. The evidence to support this is the number of mature student deferrals and drop-outs – anecdotally due to difficulties accessing finance - as is the fall in mature student applications / enrolments. 1.6 Lack of access to guidance services for adults – no clear central referral point. To support this view, recent changes in the structure of the post leaving certificate sector has meant that guidance hours have been reduced, which disadvantages mature students with regards information on progression routes. Recent changes where the VEC became the ETB and the changes within that structure with regards Adult Guidance provision is an issue for mature students. Guidance is important for adults to enable them to make informed decisions re returning to higher education, whether as first time or as second chance entrants. 1.7 Lack of flexibility in the system, e.g. grant support only for full-time undergraduate students – none for part-time or access students. 1.8 Some ‘second chance’ mature students are disadvantaged e.g. have to retrain / reskill due to necessity / downturn in economy. These students cannot access any financial support for a second / alternative qualification. Springboard offers qualifications in certain industries / professions only. These students are not considered ‘first-time’ entrants and do not come under the HEA funding model.

2

2.

With regard to the roles of other stakeholders, how can the HEA and Higher Education Institutions most effectively support increased access?

2.1 There is a need for continuity of support across the education spectrum. Visiting Teachers, stakeholders in second level, Colleges of Further Education and Disability Officers in Higher Education need to work collaboratively to ensure consistency, sharing of supports and methodology of supports that work to enhance access of underrepresented groups in Higher Education. Centres of excellence could be developed in each region as per the regional clusters identified on page 16 of Consultation Paper so that supports could be put in place on a larger scale for specific categories of disability. In a time of reduced funding in Higher Education, stakeholders in each region could work collaboratively to an agreed set of methodolgies or pathway therefore enabling successful transition of students with disabilities from primary level right through to Higher Education. 2.2 Prioritise work on developing coherent pathways to HE from further / adult / community ed. More collaborative work on ‘bridge’ programmes – coherent approach regionally. 2.3 By ‘other stakeholders’ we are assuming that other public service departments whose policies conflict with the NAO Access targets (e.g. social protection, housing, education) will need to be resolved at a political level – until this is resolved the education institutions have no leverage. 3. Section Four proposes four main goals, with a larger number of associated actions, we would welcome your views on these. In your view what actions should be prioritised and are there other goal actions that need to be included? 

  

Goal One – prioritise the following actions; 5 (impact of national policy decisions) e.g. finance; 7 (role of guidance and mentoring) and 11 (review of recurrent funding model – encompass funding for PT / flexible learners) Goal Two – actions 2, 3, 4 & 6 Goal Three – actions 1 & 2 Goal four – actions 1,2,3,4

Other Comments on Goals 3.1 A priority should be annual reporting on all categories of disabilities. It is important that targets set are monitored in line with overall national trends. For example, while HEI’s met targets set for 2013 with regard to students who are Blind and Vision Impaired, the target set originally did not account for the rate of increase of students with all disabilities in Higher Education. 3.2 Utilisation of AHEAD Participation Data as this is based on actual numbers of students registered with disabilities in Higher Education. 3.3 Add goal re increasing retention rates of students with mental health difficulties. 3.4 Add goal re enhancing the transition to employment by graduates with disabilities. Develop more work related programmes to create opportunities for graduates with disabilities.

3

4.

What actions should be taken to ensure that there is more consistent representation from underrepresented groups across all fields of study e.g. programmes leading directly to the professions.

4.1 Traditionally, students with disabilities pursued degree programmes across the Humanities and Social Sciences rather than professional degrees in Medicine and Health, Teaching and Social Work. With increased participation of students with disabilities in Higher Education, AHEAD, 2014 reports a greater representation of students with disabilities across all degree programmes including professional degree programmes. To build on this trend, it would be worthwhile to develop a module as part of Guidance and Counselling training outlining the opportunities for students with disabilities to pursue programmes leading to the professions. Currently, there is a certain level of fear surrounding the access of students with disabilities to professional degree programmes. If graduates with disabilities from professional degree programmes were to become role models, their achievement and success would communicate a positive message to Guidance Counsellors that there are opportunities for students with disabilities in professional degree programmes. Such a designated module may address the current low participation rates of students with disabilities in professional degree programmes. 4.2 Greater support for access / preparatory programmes – recognition of the need for specialist preparation for certain areas, particularly for adults who are out of formal education for some time. 4.3 Greater collaboration between FE & HE in design of programmes and development of minimum entry requirements – less exclusive focus on progression from second level education. 4.4 QQI have a role in developing higher level maths to enable students to compete for professional programmes that require this subject. Higher level science subjects are important also for entry in many professional programmes. 4.5 Incentivise these programmes to encourage participation for underrepresented groups – professional courses have hidden costs that disadvantaged students cannot afford. 4.6 More focused and targeted initiatives are needed to ensure target groups are represented in certain course types and professions. Have some element of course/programme funding tied to this would be a possible incentive to achieve higher numbers. 4.7 Retention and progression rates for under-represented groups is closely linked to adequate resources and this has to be addressed. 5.

Section Five of the document proposes a number of quantitive targets and indicators to support monitoring progress on access. Are there other targets or indicators that you think should be included and, if so, how should these be measured?

5.1 Set targets for professional degree programmes – and categories within this percentage. 5.2 Targets for transition from Further Education to Higher Education. 5.3 Data for mature students should be based on their current socio-economic circumstances and not on their parents as they are, in the main, independent of their parents and for many, their parents are deceased.

4

5.4 Mature students’ educational background is important – take into consideration that there are students who were victims of institutional factors, who did not succeed in education due to bullying, dyslexia, exclusion, school attended etc. 5.5 Progression to postgraduate & graduate employment. 5.6 Part-time mature student target – variety of types/levels of programmes available on part-time/flexible basis makes it difficult to make this a meaningful target. Who is counting/reporting what? Mature students on funded / non-funded programmes; First-time entrant MS Vs ‘second chance’ / progression mature students; Short courses Vs special purpose Vs undergrad Vs postgrad – how is this part-time student really defined? 5.7 Targets could be broken down by sector or even by institution and tied to the HEA Compact Agreements to give them real meaning. Different sectors have different profiles to other sectors and this should be addressed in the targets and best practice guidelines (one size does not fit all). 5.8 In tandem with this plan, there needs to be a strong tie in with the strategic plans for the post-primary, primary and early year’s sectors like has been done recently with the FE Strategic Plan. The policies, funding mechanisms and initiatives of each should complement each other and not be contradictory as sometimes seems the case. Third level institutions are only one, vital, cog in the education pathway and all need to be aligned in the same direction. 5.9 Perhaps the weighting system for non-traditional students will be revised in line with the new targets, and HEIs will receive ‘credit’ for students from DEIS schools, the named postal codes, FETAC entry routes. There is a slight mismatch between what HEAR measures and what the equal access survey captures. While both are appropriate, there needs to be some mechanism to link HEAR and other under 23 entry routes to funding and targets. 5.10 We welcome the numerical target for Travellers. 5.11 The strategy may wish to identify ways in which government policy will address educational disadvantage – our work in the education sector is underpinned by other government departments – health, justice to name a few. To genuinely get to the root causes of low attainment and low progression rates, we need to consider poverty, housing, health, etc. For example at the moment social protection policy on back to education allowance seems to be providing a strong disincentive for students and therefore the sector not being able to reach access targets. 5.12 Very important that the main agents within the education sector ‘buy in’ to these targets – that is school management, teachers, parents. The information campaign about targets should be more accessible and better understood by the stakeholders that help to make high educational expectations a reality. 6.

What qualitative measures also need to be considered to measure performance in increasing equity of access to Higher Education?

6.1 A qualitative measure is necessary with regard to the student experience. The current focus on quantitative measurements does not allow for an increase of access to the overall student experience. A measurement of how successful the student with a

5

disability is in integrating in to student life is required. A holisitc measurement that details the students involvement in clubs and societies, sport and recreation, student union, politics and work experience would be beneficial. 6.2 Mature students may experience multiple disadvantages, e.g. they have disabilities, they are in receipt of grant aid and social welfare, they could be from an ethnic minority or the traveller community - it is important to recognise these factors through case studies, focus groups etc. 6.3 Mature students may have had a negative experience of education in the past. These students may have suffered a life crisis and made the decision to change their life path through higher education and there is a need to capture this under the social inclusion element. 7. General Comments 7.1 The statement that mature students are a particular focus of the next plan is welcome (p.6). 7.2 The consultation document refers to the salient barriers to education for mature students, such as, finance, childcare and guidance, and it is welcome that recognition of “contradictions between wider education and public policy and objectives of the new plan … need to be resolved” (pg5). 7.3 The context of the consultation paper/NAO Plan has a strong employment focus which is positive. However we would caution that the race towards programmes for employment can sometimes disadvantage participants in the long term. For example if a person is guided from DSP to a Springboard programme (based on RPL and not a graduate), with a qualification rated level 8 (either special purpose/minor/major award), they are technically not a ‘graduate’ or a degree student from an employment perspective. If that person is required to undertake a full-time degree at some point then they are not entitled to a 3rd level grant, BTEA and they will have to pay full tuition fees. The argument can be made that employers are more open minded to these short programmes now. However, if we are to follow the consultation papers own logic on page 11 that 63% of jobs in the USA will require 3rd level education and that this is fast becoming a reality in Ireland, then 3rd level qualification is still understood to be at least a level 7 degree. 7.4 For mature students’ educational disadvantage may also indicate their experience at school. The new and long-term unemployed tend to be adults who may not necessarily be from ‘traditional’ socio-economic backgrounds, but because of economic circumstances, now find themselves educationally disadvantaged in terms of getting back to work. 7.5 HEA is putting the onus on the HEIs to deliver on the recommendations of the plan even though there has been a cut in Access budgets and SAF. The penalties for not reaching targets need to be clarified also. For instance, if, as already mentioned, the current funding policy conflicts with access policy then there is a wider issue than the university policy. Another issue that may impact on institutional mature student targets is that the NAO/HEA only considers ‘first-time entrants’ to higher education when calculating mature student numbers. This is problematic as some students will have entered education at school leaving age and progressed to level 7 and then decide as a mature student to undertake a different degree as a result of not being able to get employment or just making a mature decision. These students are not considered ‘first-time entrants’ even though they are new to the degree programme. In other words the actual registration number for mature students can be much higher than the HEA definition.

6