CENTRE for CROSS BORDER STUDIES

Press release 24 April 2001

The emphasis by the governments in both parts of Ireland on promoting lifelong learning will not, in itself, help the 'learning poor' - the estimated 1.1 million adults on the island who left school with few or no qualifications - according to a new study published by the Centre for Cross Border Studies.

The report - Ireland's Learning Poor: Adult Educational Disadvantage and Cross-Border Co-operation - is the work of two of the island's leading educational researchers: Paul McGill, formerly education correspondent of the Belfast Telegraph, and Dr Mark Morgan, of St Patrick's College, Drumcondra.

It will be launched by the Northern Ireland Minister for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, Dr Sean Farren, in Belfast's Europa Hotel at 9 a.m. on Tuesday 24 April.

The authors define the 'learning poor' as adults who have not gone beyond lower secondary or even primary education, and who have few if any qualifications. They suggest a conservative estimate of 800,000 learning poor in the Republic and 300,000 in Northern Ireland.

The report says: "The vast bulk of the higher and further education budget, North and South, is spent on school-leaving entrants to full-time higher education. Since this group is largely middle class, this very large subvention has the effect of reinforcing inequality."

The authors go on: "Institutions that cater predominantly for middle class school-leavers are far removed from the vision of lifelong learning, where people of all ages and social classes drop in and out of education and training on an equal basis. Ireland's higher education system is inadequate to achieve such a vision or to meet the needs of people who are not remotely ready to enter higher education. Further education is better geared to the task, but even Further Education Colleges (in the North) and Institutes of Technology (in the Republic) are too forbidding for very many of the learning poor.

"We would argue strongly that the recent emphasis on lifelong learning will not, in itself, help disadvantaged groups, such as people in poverty, people with few or no qualifications, disabled people or members of ethnic minorities, including refugees and asylum seekers. Unless accompanied by special measures to attract these learning poor, lifelong learning will bring most benefit to those who already have good learning achievements."

The report points out that the North's Further Education Colleges have concentrated on expanding prestigious higher education work, rather than developing courses at basic or intermediate level, where the skills shortages are most severe. Full-time higher education numbers in these colleges have increased by over 240 per cent in recent years, whereas further education numbers - which are more likely to come from the learning poor - have risen by a tiny 0.7 per cent. And the FECs are far more likely to do this kind of basic further education work than the Institutes of Technology in the Republic.

The authors propose three areas where increased government emphasis and investment could make a real impact on widening the educational participation of adults:

• a co-ordinated effort to improve standards of literacy and numeracy;
• greater investment in community education and the creation of organic links between community groups and the resources of the statutory sector;
• open and distance education and the appropriate use of ICT.

They suggest that because lifelong learning policies are currently being formulated in both jurisdictions, and international studies have shown that they share very similar problems, cross-border co-operation would make good sense, educationally and economically.

The authors make 34 recommendations on attracting the learning poor; tackling literacy problems; improving community education and the relationships between colleges and communities; enhancing adult participation through ICT; increasing financial incentives and making structures more accessible to the disadvantaged.

Among these recommendations are:

• Institutions of higher and further education in both jurisdictions should set targets for the number of students from disadvantaged groups who are admitted and who complete courses.
• Given the scarcity of research into adult learning in Ireland, there should be joint cross-border research and testing-development programmes, with particular emphasis on the use of ICT. There should also be a cross-border programme of training for literacy tutors.
• Given the evidence of the effectiveness of family literacy programmes, a joint resource centre in this area should be established; similarly, there should be a cross-border workplace literacy initiative.
• The embryonic cross-border outreach literacy programmes initiated by Northern Further Education Colleges should be extended and formalised.
• A North/South fund should be set up to encourage co-operation between Northern FECs and Southern Institutes of Technology, and this should allow community education groups on both sides of the border to use these colleges' expertise.
• The research unit within the Republic's proposed National Adult Learning Council could carry out research and disseminate good practice throughout Ireland.
• The UK University for Industry learndirect programme should be extended to the South in partnership with existing education and training bodies there. Joint learning centres should be created along the border.
• Student funding in both jurisdictions should be rationalised so that decisions are based on income rather than mode of study, thus redirecting more resources towards people on low incomes.

Further information from:

Paul McGill Tel. +353 (0)75-31569

Mark Morgan Tel. +353 (0)1-8842061

Andy Pollak director, Centre for Cross Border Studies
Tel. 028-3751-1550 (048 from Republic of Ireland);
Mobile: +44 (0)771-5042122