Different but equal: institutes of technology must make their point

The institute of technology (IoT) sector is thriving. But it must still battle parental prejudice and a communications problem, argues Jim Devine chairman of the Council of Directors of Institutes of Technology

In her introduction to the recently published booklet highlighting the range of activities in the institutes of technology, the Minister for Education and Science, Mary Hanafin, confirms that "the institutes have done a first class job in responding to economy-linked skills needs... Awards from sub-degree right through to PhD level are made in the sector."

Now, 50 per cent of all students entering higher education attend an institute of technology (IoT). In addition, more than 20,000 study part-time each year, on campus and in the workplace, building credits towards internationally recognised qualifications.

Some 1,200 students are engaged in programmes at Master's and doctoral levels. IoT graduates have been pivotal in underpinning economic growth and in providing the knowledge, professionalism and skills base that continues to make Ireland a location of choice for inward investment.

It comes as something of a surprise therefore to find in market research commissioned by the IoTs that "spontaneous" awareness of the sector is as low as 35 per cent. A similar percentage "don't know" the number of institutes nationwide - in fact there are 14.

Some 38 per cent of respondents replied "don't know" when asked if the IoTs operated entirely independently or as part of a group. Clearly, there is work to be done at the front of house to communicate our distinctive role and reputation within higher education. There is a clear need to work with the second-level sector to highlight to students the advantages of an IoT education. The recent publication marks the start of a concerted campaign to do just that as the IoTs prepare to take their place alongside the universities under the Higher Education Authority (HEA).

The successes of the IoTs may, paradoxically, have more than a little to do with the perception gap that the recent survey has uncovered. Could it be that what is etched in the public consciousness is simply the significant role played by the IoTs in the economic recovery in the late 1980s and growth in the 1990s through the education of skilled craftspersons and technicians?

Allied to this is, perhaps, a continuing false view among a generation of parents that degree and postgraduate level studies are the sole preserve of universities.

Today's IoTs could not be more different. They offer a significantly broader range of professionally oriented programmes, with honours degrees as the norm, while continuing to provide intermediate qualifications at higher certificate and ordinary degree level.

A vastly increased range of programmes now includes applied sciences, nursing studies, humanities and social sciences, architecture, media and digital media, computing and ICT, engineering, business, e-business and enterprise. Specialist areas - for example hospitality, catering and tourism and creative disciplines such as art, design, film and animation - can be taken to honours degree level and beyond and are simply not available within the university sector.

IoTs continue to benefit from substantial capital investment in new buildings and facilities, a resounding endorsement by the Department of Education that is transforming the IoT campuses.

The 14 IoTs, each an independent and autonomous college, have been working "back of house" over many years to build a cohesive, credit-based, student-centred system that underpins national and regional priorities for economic and social development.

In practical terms, shared common approaches ensure that students can work flexibly towards nationally recognised qualifications. Access, transfer and progression arrangements map seamlessly across all 14 IoTs, making it possible, for example, to complete earlier stages of a programme at one college and graduate at another or in some cases to mix full-time and part-time studies as personal circumstances demand.

Within this context, IoTs have played no small part in widening access to higher education and in raising participation rates from 20 per cent in 1980 to 55 per cent today. Currently there are 90,000 students registered in the sector.

Attracting students across the social spectrum, IoTs cater for students of mixed ability, including many high achievers and offer a learning experience that is distinctively different, with better staff/student ratios and a strong project-based pedagogical approach.

Too often, we have been singled out for comment on allegedly high drop-out rates. A report published last year confirms a much improved picture, as targeted support initiatives begin to have an impact. Recent studies indicate that these improvements are continuing.

Following the establishment of the National Qualifications Authority (NQAI) in 2001, all IoT study programmes have been mapped onto the National Qualifications Framework.

With formally agreed quality assurance systems in place, IoTs have also secured the power to award their own degrees, reflecting not only their high academic standards but also their commitment to the standards for governance and accountability of public bodies. However, if we must fault ourselves, it is in underestimating how difficult it can be to present complex developments in higher education to the public.

The recently published IoT Bill, when enacted, will clarify the higher education landscape. The legislation under which the IoTs currently operate will be amended, bringing it more in line with that obtaining for universities.

Crucially, the direct funding and management relationship of IoTs with the Department of Education and Science will be transferred to the Higher Education Authority, a move that is widely welcomed by all parties. Under the new arrangement, IoTs will be able to exercise greater autonomy, flexibility and timeliness in their individual and collective responses to strategic goals and priorities.

This change will realise one of the key goals of the 2004 OECD Review of Higher Education Policy in Ireland. Unlike the UK, where in 1992 the polytechnic sector was subsumed into the university sector, we have chosen to value and preserve the distinctive differences of universities and IoTs.

The HEA, at present responsible for the university sector, is shortly to extend that remit to include IoTs, resulting in a more coherent, policy-focused national higher education sector and, we hope, a new parity of esteem across all institutions. This will benefit "back of house" realities for IoTs and will clarify once and for all the "front of house" public perceptions.

Jim Devine is director of the Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology. He is also the chairman of the Council of Directors of Institutes of Technology