Deputy Principal 1 believed HE in FE was a non-runner because of the knock-on effect of industrial action in regard to 3rd level remuneration.
DP1: They are terrified that should Moate College of Further Education, whatever, set up a level 8 degree the teachers and in Moate will strike and they will all get third level pay and that will knock on to 15,000 teachers and it will break down the walls.
7.11
Interview Conclusions
The following is a summary of the findings taken from comments made by those most directly involved in the further education sector of the former CDVEC now CDETB. The findings will be grouped within the three key questions of the research.
7.11.1
How and why was HE developed in FE?
Evidence from the data overwhelmingly acknowledges the development of these higher education programmes to have come from the schools themselves with specific leadership coming from both teachers and college principals. A culture of programme development, in many of the colleges, combined with enthusiastic teaching staff, who wanted their students to do well, laid the bedrock for the development. It is also quite evident from the research that the type of student being catered for played a crucial role in the development. Students’ needs combined with innovative and motivated teachers and principals were seen as the key drivers for the development of two year courses and HE programmes. Teachers recognised the need to retain students in the colleges and went on to create two-year programmes and seek validation and certification from awarding bodies outside of the State. The lack of Irish certification was also a key driver in the development of new courses.
CDVEC management also recognised the role teachers and principals played in the creation of higher education programmes within their colleges. Leadership was identified in teachers who knew the course areas well and had important links
158
with industry. The growth had come from the ground up with teachers clearly identifying with the needs of their students and then adapting the teaching and learning to take account of a changing socio-economic environment.
It was nurtured, grown, developed, invented, and pushed through the PLC absolutely with no context at all in this country… The knowledge strength of professional expertise of certain teachers took on leadership roles were the key, who actually knew the course areas, the industry links. (VEC 1)
Evidence also suggests the CDVEC provided passive support and did not hinder the developments. However it has also been suggested that permission was seldom sought and that if it was it would be mostly refused. Similarly it would appear the Department of Education was never officially asked permission for the development of these higher education programmes and either didn’t know about them or simply refused to acknowledge their existence.
7.11.2
Have these HE programmes been successful?
While the extent of higher education within further education is small a significant number of FECs have provided higher education for many years. One FEC has more than 50% of courses at HE level and provides three degree programmes at level 8 on the NQF. BTEC HNDs are the most common courses of higher education within FECs but there was some confusion as to their level on the NQF. The Quality and Qualifications Authority have agreed they are higher education and compared them to level 6 (higher certificate) on the NQF.
In many cases FECs provide the best environment for students pursuing further and higher education. There was consistent reference made to the students and their learning needs. The suggestion was that sometimes the standard pathway to third level education was not the most likely means for higher education attainment for these students. Values such as inclusivity, affinity and trust were seen to be central to a successful education outcome. FECs are considered as an alternative pathway for learners who had difficulty accessing 3rd level education.
Also unique courses were seen to contribute to the success of the sector and were considered to be of great value to students.
159
Even though the provision of higher education within further education was generally deemed to be very successful with many thousands of students being awarded higher certification the sector is not without its disadvantages. Poor funding and a lack of resources were the main disadvantages for FECs. As funding from the ESF was discontinued the Government did not continue with funding and therefore there was a significant demise in programme development. Many teachers talked about a general sense of inequality which manifests itself through a lack of resources and funding, negative attitudes and snobbery towards the sector and a misunderstanding and/or lack of recognition of the contribution made by FECs. Second level structures were seen as a hindrance within FECs and many believed that these should change to more appropriate structures. However the McIver report, which supported the structural changes, was subsequently shelved by the Department after its publication in 2003.
Definitions of FE are equivocal and many blame the DES and their neglect of the sector for this confusion. Many expressed the opinion that discrimination and distinction between FE and HE is part of the common discourse and that this is constantly reinforced in the media.
7.11.3
How might DES Policy Impact on HE in FE?
Most respondents felt HE should continue to some extent within FE where resources are adequate. CDVEC management felt it could continue but that in many cases there was a need for more resources if it were to cater adequately for the increasing numbers of students looking for places. However the Department of Education is resolute in its separation of further education and higher education. The following is their official position on the issue.
It is not desirable that third level courses should be offered through further education colleges. The provision of third level courses by further education colleges could lead to large scale duplication with the Institute of Technology sector. This would also create confusion about the mission of the respective sectors which would ill serve the needs of learners seeking to re-skill and upskill. (DES, Appendix K, 2013)
160
As already highlighted above duplication of programmes only came about after the Institutes of Technology cloned many of the courses which were uniquely developed within the FE sector and students clearly still choose FECs for these programmes because of their excellent reputation. Furthermore many teachers expressed the opinion the Department of Education showed a lack of recognition for the contributions made by FECs over the years and recent legislation threatens the future of HE in FE and makes no reference to developments made by FECs.
Teachers were also concerned how recent legislation showed a lack of distinction between education and training. They considered their profession might be threatened by the establishment of SOLAS and the amalgamation of FÁS and VECs. The clash of cultures, predicated on differences between training and education, was seen as potentially problematic. The main fear was that the focus of attention was on developing skills in an effort to boost employment and that this was to the detriment of the broader purpose of education where learning was central to the development of cognitive abilities. As one teacher commented,
I’d just be really afraid this is an age old argument about education and training, you can train monkeys but you educate people. (P4)
In the following chapter I will discuss the findings in relation to both the substantive issues of leadership in the evolution of higher education within further education using the theoretical perspective of Bourdieu’s theory of cultural production focusing on habitus, capital and field.
161