Each parallel session was asked to attempt to report back to the plenary with three salient points where possible.
The first issue highlighted in session B was a suggestion that everyone be given credits at all levels of education, from primary level through to third level. One should then be in a position to bank these credits and spend them according to one's own wishes and aspirations. In this way it would be up to institutions to go out and bring people into their educational institutions to spend their credits, effectively changing the emphasis from a supply driven sector to a demand driven education. It was suggested that this was an interesting concept warranting further discussion.
The second point questioned the definition of a degree. Degrees have traditionally been conceived of in terms of a single approach to learning. However, employers are now requiring more soft skills. There is also a requirement from learners nowadays to get on and off ‘a moving staircase', that is, the IT approach of awarding certificates, diplomas and degrees. This approach allows students to learn in stages by coming back to learning at a number of different times to progress their learning needs and requirements. This point also raised some discussion on what is termed vocational or training versus what we consider to be education. The question raised related to the acceptance that, for instance, lawyers and medicine are considered to be in the education sector whereas plumbers are considered within the vocational/training sector- yet they are all skill-based. It was suggested that a skill-based approach would be more comprehensive.
The third point raised brought the discussion back to the title of the session and looked to the metaphor of the ocean. It was suggested that third level institutions are similar to big liners in the ocean and that they should be sending out more lifeboats to help learners to get on the first stage of third level education.
Anne informed the plenary that this was a large group and the discussion that evolved from the presentation centred on those involved in education confronting themselves rather than concentrating on agreement on any three points with which to return to the plenary session.
Some observations from the discussion that followed the input by Dr. Ryan are summarised below:
There was discussion on whether access should be learner or system driven. No conclusions were agreed but through the discussion it became evident that a lot of room for debate remained on these issues.
The issue was also raised that it may be presumptuous to assume that all of us involved in education are anxious to see change take place. Also that we are all looking for the same kind of change. Again it was suggested that there is a need for more dialogue even within the system.
There was some sense of difference between those who focused on what learner needs were in terms of being able to participate and others who looked at what is wrong with the system. Some pointed to the fact that the system of third level education is a sub-system of a larger system of education and in turn this a sub-system of society. The values throughout the education system are going to appear in third level education. There was debate on these issues without coming to three easy points.
The link was made between the development of a sustainable society and the identification future training needs. It was emphasised that education should be about informing society of its future needs. This in turn will lead to the type of training that will be required from education providers, so that education and society continue to inform each other of changing needs and requirements.
It was also emphasised that it is necessary to find a way of valuing people who have gained much experience and skills through their work and employment environments and who do not have formal third level education. Many in this situation have a wealth of experience. However, currently we have no system for valuing such experience and skill acquisition.
There is a need to work in partnership and for the state to support partnership with all players involved in education: education providers; workplaces; partnerships; need to all work together to develop education that values workplace learning and experience.
Janet recounted the interesting presentation that Bob Osborne gave on equality legislation as it applies in Northern Ireland and in particular its impact on Queen's University and on the University of Ulster. He posed the question: Will legislation push forward developments in access and equality, and should the ROI follow this path, through legislative developments?
No conclusions were drawn. However, it highlighted the manner in which equality legislation that was not aimed at universities, and how this actually impacted strongly on their policy and practice. There was a concern with regard to selection procedures as they currently operate for non-standard students. Currently selection criteria seem to be ad hoc -a national standard, which would be transparent and have an agreed common way was advocated.
The fact that no national definition of a disadvantaged student exists, was raised. It was suggested that there needs to be an agreed definition on disadvantage. This will determine who is being kept out of the process. Without such a definition it is left up to individuals to decide on how worthwhile some programmes are. It was pointed out that Combat Poverty Agency and ESRI have come up with a per adult dependent formula which may be worthwhile investigating.
The final point that was raised was that although access programmes are worthwhile at third level, they come too late in the educational process. It is necessary to address issues of disadvantage right from the first stages of primary education.
Peter's report started with a suggestion that this session might have been better entitled 'Enabling the Teacher' since the focus of discussion was related to how best the teacher can be encouraged to adopt new and more appropriate methodologies for working with mixed-ability students.
The importance of re-training for academic staff was raised. It was suggested that there is a need for a cultural/attitudinal shift on the part of teachers, as many are not conscious of the difficulties faced by differently-abled learners.
The need for targeted funding, at both institutional and national levels, was emphasised. The financial implications of this must be clearly understood, and appropriate methods of provision inaugurated.
The final point raised by this group was that these new demands provide a valuable opportunity to query the effectiveness of existing teaching strategies. The group felt that the requirement to cope with a greater diversity of learners in the classroom will encourage the development of new more flexible and imaginative teaching methods together with better support mechanisms. This should have a generally beneficial effect on the quality of education as a whole.