Interview with Paul Gogarty TD, Green Party Education Spokesman

I would like to thank Mr Gogarty for taking my questions.

A few months ago, the Green Party started its 50 Steps program where you would release fifty policies on education on the run up to the election. It was going well for a while with roughly one a week. However since step nine on July 31th, no new policies have been released. Have you given up or have the Green Party run out of ideas?

The answer is neither. The day after step nine was released, my lifelong friend and colleague Cllr. Fintan McCarthy and his girlfriend Sonya Rabbitte were tragically killed in a road accident in China. I had seen August as an opportunity to release several steps in succession, but as you can imagine that went out the window after the bad news. It took two weeks before the removals and joint funeral could be held. As a result the Month’s Mind didn’t take place until the 16th of September. The week after we had to hold a selection convention to nominate someone for co-option onto the vacant Council seat. Things only started getting back to a semblance of normality in October.

I say a semblance of normality because for me things will never be the same again. Fintan was so much of my personal and political life. But of course you have to get on with things; he would have been the first to tell me to get off my arse and stop moping around. So I am, but things are, let’s say, a little behind, not least in correspondence.

So, to go back to your original question, we have not given up and have certainly not run out of ideas. The opposite is the case. We have so many proposals on Education; it is a key Green Party issue and we are the only ones to have committed to significant additional targeted funding for education, costed and approved by both our Finance Spokesperson and the party membership at our Ard Fheis.

At time of responding to this questionnaire, the steps are once again being rolled out. People can once again access regular updates at 50steps.com.

There has been much talk of the leaving cert being dumbed down. Do you believe it is and what can be done?

I don’t necessarily think it has been dumbed down. I do think the Leaving Cert needs to be reformed and I would like to see more uptake in science subjects. But the exam itself is no worse than it ever was! By that I mean that it is an academic memory test, which suits some students, but does little to develop or measure the full range of intelligences, aptitudes and application.

And there is something seriously wrong when people can perform well in their Leaving Certs but not have the coping skills for the hard knocks experienced in the University of Life, or even in real universities.

I also believe that there has been a general decline in top-end literacy from third-level down. I have been told that spelling and grammar are being increasingly ignored by tutors, which is a bad idea from a future employment perspective.

What measures would you like to see to introduced to encourage more people to take up post-graduate studies in science? Is funding sufficient and, in particular, do student grants need to be increased?

Postgraduate studies in science, I would suggest, are a function of how many study science subjects at third level in the first instance. Part of this goes back to the shortfall in science take-up at senior cycle. Some of it is due to marketing, but a lot, anecdotally at least, could be related to the perceived difficulties of physics and chemistry. One pet theory of mine is that many students now work part-time and some might find it difficult to apply themselves to more challenging subjects because of the time pressure allied with social demands.

In this context, I think that additional points for science subjects would be worth some further consideration by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. But let’s not forget that the humanities are also worth studying in their own right and the value of a particular course depends on the life choice of the student, which is not always solely dictated by earnings potential.

Regarding funding, I would argue that third level and the new “fourth level” are funded adequately at present, although measures need to be put in place for students in terms of maintenance costs and in terms of part-time fees. This is something we are looking at as part of our 50 Steps.

Should Irish industry be encourage to sponsor science research in universities? Or should research be dictated by the science not by industrial requirements?

I am all for a certain level of research sponsored fully or partially by business at third level, but it should never be the primary driver. There is scope for strategic research projects that are directed by and primarily funded by the State. I have heard arguments that good science research has to be global and collaborative, but there are certain circumstances where this should not be the case.
Multinational-led research is more likely to form part of a programme rather than an entire programme in Ireland. This means that the knowledge and the profits from the eventual commercial application of the research tend to be exported. There are many niche success stories in Ireland, but what is missing is large-scale strategic State-funded research.

By this I particularly mean ground-breaking new research in an area where our future economic stability is at stake, namely energy. Ireland is dangerously dependent on foreign imports, yet we could become net exporters of energy if the political will was there. We are way behind countries such as Denmark in wind energy production, despite having better natural resources. Wind, biomass and especially tidal need more research and if new Irish companies are formed arising out of such research, so much better.

Ask most students and they will say that some subjects are easier to score high points in then others. Do these subjects needed to be changed or does the point system needs to be changed?

Going back to an earlier response, I would say change the points system. But we have to change the context whereby other forms of intelligence need to be brought into the equation. This would be of benefit not just to the students themselves, but also to employers who would hopefully appreciate more creative, centred employees.

The Green Party is known to like the Swedish model of society; would you follow their example and support a system of school vouchers system for poorer people to avail of private education?

No. I love Sweden for its social welfare system and its commitment to becoming oil-free in 20 years, but as regards education, vouchers for private schools is admitting that the public system has failed. I believe that a better way to deal with this situation is to make sure that the public system is well resourced. For reasons of religious ethos and choice, there will always be private institutions, but we need to ensure that our best and brightest can come through the mainstream system. An increasing number of parents are investing in private second level schools because they are perceived as better and because of the networking opportunities. That should be a choice rather than a necessity.

Do you think that the role of the church in schooling needs to be lessened if not removed?

The State historically failed to invest in education and left it up to the religious to build and run the majority of schools in this country. While the abuse issue cannot be ignored, the religious have on the whole done an excellent job. The education provided has been of a high standard and as a country we should be grateful.

Should Church influence it be lessened? Yes, it should, but managing such a transformation is the challenge. Perhaps the best solution is to leave well enough alone, but to legislate for increased community representation on boards of management and to provide supports for the newer models of education as multidenominational. I am not saying leave things be as a cop-out, rather I am recognising the positive role still played by the Church in education and also the plain reality that the role of the religious in Ireland is declining in any event as evidenced by the fact that many orders are setting up trusts run by lay people to continue their educational work.

The broader issue is whether religion should be in schools at all, or after school hours. This is relevant to parents of all faiths, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and others. Some parents want religious education, some don’t. Choice should be provided and as long as the curriculum is followed, I don’t see it as a particular problem. In Australia for example, there are free state schools and private Catholic schools. And it is the fee-paying Catholic schools that are experiencing growth.

Is the Irish education system in need of serious modernisation in its attitude to sex? Shouldn’t there be sexual education in school to equip our children to cope with the emotional and physical aspects of relationships as well as the predatory influences at large today?

Yes, yes and yes. Someone needs to take the bull by the horns and facilitate an open and honest debate on these issues. Our children’s safety and health is too important for pseudo-moral objections.

With China rising in the world economy should Mandarin be added to the foreign languages taught in schools.

I don’t see why not.

The Green Party seems to be continually ruling out going into power with Fianna Fail but is also saying that they are going into the election as an independent party. If Fianna Fail are the only party you can go into power with, will you go into power with them, or will you stay out of power and deny your voters the chance to get the policies they voted for acted on?

That is primarily an issue for the members. Our independent stance is a reflection that we are policy-driven and see no great difference between FF/PD and FG/Labour alternative. This means that we could enter Government with either grouping. But members may have a problem with the fact that Fianna Fail are tired and have been in Government too long, so FF is an unlikely partner next time around, but not impossible at this stage. If they are the only possibility for Government, I would much rather see an FF/Green government than an FF/Lab, FF/PD or FF/SF one.

I come from a rural area and many people are scared of what a Green government would mean for rural Ireland with such issues as the Nitrates Directive being a source of worry. What can the Green Party do to allay their fears and what can the Greens do to change the image of the Greens as a middle-class urbanite party.

This one pisses me off big time. As far as I am concerned, this is an issue of false propaganda being spun, but one which is difficult to counteract. As a small party, you only get so many opportunities to get you point across but if you are explaining you have already lost the battle. Let’s look at some of the negatives first:

Nitrates: I am not an agriculture expert and for the purposes of this interview did not consult with anyone who knows the policy inside out, but can I say this: while the Green Party supports the Nitrates Directive, it is the EU that has introduced it and the FF/PD Government which is implementing it. Our argument is that nitrates have destroyed the environment and that over-use has damaged land long term. The other reality is that with oil prices rising, nitrates will become more expensive. Better to invest in organic production and generate new markets as a clean, green food location.

Another negative is the issue of wanting to protect rights of way. This affects farmers, but the tourism angle affects even more rural dwellers from a job creation point of view. We will legislate to allow for access, but we have also stated that we believe that farmers should receive some form of payment for their stewardship of the land which is being accessed.

Then there are the positives which are not always promoted.

In terms of protecting and enhancing rural life, the Green Party has proposed measures to improve public transport in rural areas and to preserve rural post offices and communities.

I would also argue that the Green Party is the only party actively working to keep farmers on the land. We recognised that, within the EU framework, certain activities will no longer be as profitable as they were, but that there are other income streams to compensate, be they organic production, agritourism or biomass.

The big positive is energy. Our deputy leader, Cllr. Mary White, has led the way in calling for the sugar factories to be reopened to create jobs by producing biofuels, which would also support farm incomes. We see the potential for farmers to make real money by setting aside land for energy production, which can be subsidised in the early years and which will become much more commercially viable as oil prices continue to rocket.

In summary, we currently have an urban base of elected representatives, but rural areas are already showing in the polls for the next election. Our membership is diverse and not just focused on city life. But it is difficult to counteract the spin promoted by parties such as FF and FG about our policies. You would think we have been in Government for years to have done such damage!

If you could get one member of any other party to join the Greens who would it be?

I would sign up Damian English. He is committed to serving a rapidly growing area which is suffering from a lack of facilities. While he takes his legislative opportunities as they arise, he is equally committed to his constituents and therefore makes a good all round TD. His outlook would be Green in the broad sense of the word. More and more people are realising that Green issues are issues of facilities, good planning and community.

And finally why should people vote for you and not your constituency rivals?

My motto is “Not Just at Election Time” and I work hard to keep my constituents updated regularly. I consult on all major issues and listen closely to local needs, while also keeping an eye to the bigger picture. I have a lot of time for most of my rivals and would not criticise their work rate. However Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the PDs have caused a lot of the problems in my constituency in terms of rezoning land for housing but without facilities. I am happy that my work rate is equal if not better than others. My priority has always been to represent my constituents at whatever level is most effective but I have also done a lot of work in the education area and believe that the Green Party is leading the way on this issue. While not saying that I am personally better than my rivals, I believe that I deserve the vote because (a) what you see is what you get; (b) unlike my rivals, I do not seek or accept corporate donations and can make decisions clearly independent of outside interests; and (c) as a Green I look to the quality of life of my constituents and to the needs of both existing and future generations. We Greens see the big picture.

We always have seen the big picture. But more recently we have learned to focus on the local needs too, so if people are looking for a better future for themselves and their children, voting Green means a better service. Locally, I would hope that I have responded to people’s needs, have shown some leadership on key issues such as transport, education, crime and planning. Nationally I am not afraid to speak my mind, I am able to articulate political messages well and am keen to effect real political change whenever I get the chance to do so as part of a future Government.