Head over to our T
No Fees Decision Until After June Elections
Read more about: Education, Fianna Fail 
Today we hear that no tough decision will be taken on fees until after June 5th. Perhaps it was last night’s Prime Time segment on how middle income earners would be put off university with the abolition of fees. We won’t know about the decision but we will get an idea of just what we mean by fairness and tough decisions. Third level is at once the holy grail and a financial drain for this government.
Last night on Prime Time the rather bizzare debate between USI’s Shane Kelly and Fianna Fail’s Timmy Dooley caught the most of my attention. Addled as I was from the easter break I couldn’t fathom why a back bencher was taken on to debate proposals that government have not even seen yet (though the pretence that we don’t know what we will do regarding 3rd level fees is growing tiresome).
Timmy did what he always does, defend government without really knowing the details of the debate – irrelevant as they are to his broader goal of not embarassing government. That much was successful but the fees debate looks likely to kick on in the coming forthnight when Batt O Keeffe, fresh from his mauling at the INTO and ASTI yesterday and the TUI today, brings proposals for third level fees to cabinet.
The government need third level and fourth level to move an economy forward, they patently cannot afford it as they see it but any move to reintroduce fees will kick off a reaction from poorer families, unions and the population at large. They flew this fees kite for long enough doing little more than emphasising the amount of money 3rd level gets from the exchequer. The debate has been absent, the legs given to it by outside commentators.
Government decision to make students (which in effect means families) pay has been taken. From here it is managing the introduction – June is not a good time but July is with teachers on holidays and students off on their J1s.
The thing is, people probably wouldn’t mind if they knew that the fees were going to be post-graduation and only deducted from pay when the individual in question was working. What’s really causing problems is that people are terrified that the fees will be up-front.
I’m pretty certain that the idiots will get greedy and decide that they want cash as soon as possible, which means they’ll introduce up-front fees rather than post-graduation fees, and that’s why they don’t want to take a decision on it until July.
There is a presumption in all the discussion that the minister has to go with only one option. However, it is entirely possible that he might go with a combination of options to recoup some money from current graduates who never paid fees while having a loan/deferred payment system for current and future students. The graduate tax would get money into the system now, while the deferred option would mean money into the future.
Look at it this way if the government is prepared to impose tax increases of 4/9% coupled with the pension levies on the public sector, taking 1/2% from only graduates from 1996 to 2009 is a drop in the ocean by comparison. Don’t think this will only affect current and future students.
Cian and Kevin,
Just to add some detail about those who suffered when fees were in place, because this might indicate who might be deterred from going to college if fees (or loans) are brought in, particularly in current climate when lower and middle income families are taking a pretty major hit on their incomes – According to studies by the Higher Education Authority (HEA) between 1980 and 1992, the children of all but three social groups out of 11 improved their participation rate in college. The three social groups were the Lower Professional, Salaried Employees, Intermediate Non-Manual workers – all low-to-middle-income PAYE workers. The participation rate of children from the three social groups concerned not only did not improve but worsened from the years 1986 to 1992. By 1998 a year after the abolition of third level tuition fees the HEA report found that the decline in participation by each of these groups had been reversed. This trend has been shown to have continued by the most recent studies by the HEA.
– Joanna Tuffy T.D. Labour
But Joanna if you look at the percentage increase in participation of the groupings you mentioned
You can see that the increases in the top groups has been far greater then the bottom groups indeed 24-27% for non-manual is not exactly a ringing endorrsment of the scheme.
But the point is that every group increased except for one and in fact that group had increased with the abolition of fees and then dropped back slightly according to the most recent research. Before 1998 3 groups participation rates had been falling.
Do you not think it is significant that the children of Skilled manual workers such as bricklayers, plumbers, welders have improved their levels of participation in College from 32pc to 50pc? Or that the children of Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers such as warehouse staff, caretakers, dry cleaners going to college is up from 22pc to 33pc?
In Clondalkin and Finglas participation rates have about doubled according to the most recent research.
The most reliable research as to the participation rates by various socio-economic groups is that contained in the HEA reports ‘Who Goes to College?’ (also known as the Clancy Reports).Those reports are done every 6 years and analyse the background of every single entrant to college for the year concerned. The most recent Report on Who Goes to College was carried out in relation to 2004 College Entrants and this is what the HEA when that report was published in 2006:
” Participation in higher education in Ireland has increased by an impressive 11% since 1998 and is now 55%. All socio-economic groups have benefited. This is particularly so for the Skilled Manual Group which has almost doubled their participation in higher education to a range of 50-60% compared to 32% in 1998. The Semi and Unskilled Socio-Economic Group has also made a considerable advance – from 23% to between 33-40% over the same period. At 71%, Sligo is the county with the highest rate of admission to higher education and there has been a 13% increase in the rate of admission for Dublin. Seven out of every 10 (68.3%) of those who sat the Leaving Certificate entered some form of higher education.
These findings are contained in the HEA commissioned report (the fifth in the series) Who Went to College in 2004? A National Survey of New Entrants to Higher Education compiled by Philip O’Connell and Selina McCoy of the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) and David Clancy of Fitzpatrick Associates. When entrants to higher education institutions in Northern Ireland are included, the national figure for participation in higher education reaches 56%; and rises further to close to 60% when entrants to Colleges in Great Britain are added.”
Joanna
Joanna, why not include real side by side comparison of the rates of increase in the various groups so we can see how weak the increase in the lower socio-economic groups have been? The plain fact is that participation rates are up across the board because of more places in 3rd level, not because of the abolition of fees. Labour’s defence of the notion that only direct general taxation is the way to fund 3rd level has to be one of the strangest political twisters in existence.
My dad was an unskilled worker and fees were not a reason not to go to college for us or anyone like us. It was and remains the cost of maintenance that hurts most people in the unskilled and semi-skilled world.
When times are bad why choose to go to college for four years when you would get more support from the state on the dole and when times were booming the comparison between going working on the sites or elsewhere with spending 4 years of deferring your earnings is not a realistic choice for many people.
If the Labour minister for education had some real knowledge of what it is like to be working class then abolishing fees would not have been her grand act to try and level the playing field in terms of participation. Of course some the biggest beneficiaries of her decision were middle and upper middle class earnings in Dun Laoighaire.
Is it not more significant that the greatest improvements in the participation were in Upper Class professions. Where a 100% increase was achieved? While the increase for skilled manual workers was about half that?
Also the increase of the incomes of bricklayers, plumbers etc rapidly improved in the years questioned which would fit into Dan’s point about the real cost being the maintence.
Simon,
If you look again the upper class professions did not increase by 100 percent but to 100 percent. If it had increased by 100 per cent it would have to had been at 0 per cent in 1998, which obviously it wasn’t. In fact if you look at the HEA report on the survey of 2004 which is from which the figures you have quoted above come from and are available at the link below you will find that in 1998 the Higher Professionals had a participation rate of 100 per cent then too (see page 49). So fees or no fees the children of higher professionals go to college. What’s surprising about that?
But the increase in the rates of participation by children skilled manual workers from 32 to 50 percent and semiskilled and non skilled manual workers from 22 to 33 per cent is significant. If you came from this socio economic group you were significantly more likely to go to college in 2004 then in 1998 and even more likely then pre 1997 when tuition fees were in place. Those children of plumbers etc. were in many cases first of their families to go to college. Interesting that the decrease of participation by children of non manual workers is a good argument to make against the abolition of fees and yet my arguing that the increase in participation by the children of skilled, semi skilled and non skilled manual workers is an argument in favour of the abolition of third level fees is being questioned by you and Dan!
Dan,
If you mean what was the percentage of each socioeconomic group of the overall total of college entrants: the HEA table for 2004 is on page 42 of the document at this link:
http://www.hea.ie/files/files/file/archive/statistics/2004/Who%20went%20to%20College%20in%202004.pdf
(Page 42)
I don’t think you will find that this table and the comparison you seek makes your point. It is what percentage of each particular socio-economic group that counts in terms of showing whether the participation rates by school leavers from that particular socio economic group are improving or not.
And Dan its not me or the Labour Party that has stated that all socio economic groups have improved their participation rates at third level since 1998 (one year after the abolition of fees). It’s the HEA as per the quote I give from the HEA press release in 2006 when it launched the report into Who Goes To College 2004.
The argument you make that its down to more college places is disingenuous (being made by the Uni Heads and Fianna Fail and no one else) and it illogical. Overall percentages of school leavers going to college increased but from an access point of view it’s the fact that within that that lower income groups improved their rates of participation at college that matters. I can tell you that representing one of the disadvantaged areas in Dublin, Clondalkin, that saw college participation almost double in a decade, it was the notion that third level was a right not a privilege as well as the affordability factor for those just above the grant limits that made the difference to my constituents. And don’t forget your party has claimed credit for the abolition of third level fees as well.
Joanna
I would say that I was strongly in favour of the introduction of some payment mechanism for students – until recently, when I have been rethinking.
My reasoning was that a) the third level sector needs more funding if we are to provide the kind of graduate and post-grad education that is available in the better OECD countries and b) society benifits generally and should therefore pay, but so too does the individual and therefore he or she should contribute as well.
I have had a rethink because: in the recession the government will use the fees not to ensure improved quality of outcome but to lower the burden on government spending. I have no doubt about this now and given we are in for a five to seven year period of tough public finances the government could chip away at the public spending and shift excessive cost to the student.
The other issue is the administration and integrity of any scheme to make students pay. Whether afterward, during or before, there would have to be a fair and efficient mechanism to ensure payment. I am not at all confident that in ireland we can put such a system in place and make it work well.
So I’m still in two minds and I would like to see more concrete plans from the minister in terms of future funding and details about how any payment method would be administered.
On the issue of increased participation, I think the truth lies somewhere between Joanna Tuffy’s argument and Dan’s. I reckon that the abolition of fees removal a pyschological barrier for lower income groups. Parents who had little money to spare often didn’t contemplate third level because it might have represented an investment they felt they couldn’t afford. True there were grants and so on, but there may still have been a mental block. In truth though, this had to be a smaller componet. The real barrier for the lowest income groups was that they felt that college wasn’t for their particular stratum of society. Parents in this group mostly hadn’t a third level education themselves, what, up to the 90s, many parnents in this group hadn’t finished secondary.
The change that took place from the 90s on had to be more complexe than Joanna Tuffy and labour would allow. In fact, the whole effect of free education at secondary and the cultural revolution that took place with it in terms of education was still working its way through the last generation who might not have finished secondary becase it was expensive (my own parents are a case in point). But also the change in Irish society generally – accelerated by the nascent celtic tiger of the time. It is hard to believe that with more money in people’s pockets, even the lower income groups may have felt that sustaining a child though college could be manageable.
In short I don’t buy the argument that removal of fees was the primary cause for the modest increase in attendance levels from lower income families. Having said that, it was a bold move at the time, and it is easy now to be cynical and accuse the rainbow government of merely courting votes from the middle classes. I would imagine that genuine arguments were made for it, even if there was one eye on the political football as well.
I find it unfortunate that Labour stubbornly clings to the argument that somehow the removal has seen a major revolution in access from lower income groups. In fact, this deflects from the real debate of why lower income and disadvantaged communities do not attend college. My wife works in an inner city disadvantaged school – the real challenge there is getting parents to support the child’s education up to about 16, never mind 3rd level. Indeed, as we are repeatedly told, our investment in primary and junior level secondary lies at the lower end of the OECD table. More focus should be there, and on the wider social questions of problems in lower income families, instead of insisting that somehow the key lies in access to third level.
If you look again the upper class professions did not increase by 100 percent but to 100 percent. If it had increased by 100 per cent it would have to had been at 0 per cent in 1998, which obviously it wasn’t
Actually it would have had to be at 50% and gone up to 100% to go up by 100% from 0 to 100 would be infinity%
also from the page you quoted to me
I have to say I agree with Tomaltach on this issue. I am in favour of free fees in university as I see university as a simple extension of second level. And as the leaving cert became the basic required education level in society so to will a degree. But to argue that Free Fees are the means of increasing participation of lower income groups is I think wrong. As tomaltach pointed out the problems are much much earlier in life. At primary and even before that level. There is also societal issues where some parents encourage uni and others don’t.
If we have limited money to spend then primary investment would achieve the goals required better then free fees will. We shouldn’t have to chose but if we do the priority has to be set at the childs start in education not finish.
Simon,
The point is that Higher Professionals did not increase their participation by 100 per cent. They had 100 per cent participation according to the HEA statistics in 1998 and they had 100 percent participation according to the HEA statistics in 2004.
Just to go back to Dan’s point as to how you come up with the figures. What the HEA did (and Professor Clancy one of the 3 authors of the study is considered the expert on the socio-economic background of 3rd level college entrants)is took the percent of each socio economic group as a percentage of total college entrants for 2004 and then by setting that against the percentage of that socioeconomic group in the population as a whole as per the 2004 census the HEA was able to work out the participation rates by each particular socio economic group in 1st year of third level in 2004.
And just to give you another argument as to why the reason for the increased participation by particular lower income socio economic groups is not thanks to increased numbers of 3rd level places:
According to Who Goes to College 2004 – the percentage of leaving cert students that went into college in 2004 was 55 per cent. The percentage of leaving certificate students that went to college in 1998 was 44 per cent. The percentage of leaving cert students from the socio economic group skilled and semi skilled workers that went to college in 2004 was 50 per cent. The percentage of leaving cert students from the socio economic group skilled and semi skilled workers that went to college in 1998 was 32 per cent. So overall the percentage of leaving cert students that went to college went up by 20 percent in the 6 years. But for skilled and semiskilled workers the percentage of leaving certificate students went up over the 6 years from 1998 to 2004 by 36 per cent.
You can argue that that was because of 3rd level fees being abolished or that it was coincidental, but the fact is that before fees were abolished the HEA research 3 lower middle income socio economic groups had reduced their participation rate between the years 1986 and 1992 when fees were in place. By 1998 a year after the fees had been abolished that trend of falling participation rates by those three socio economic groups had been reversed upwards. The point being is that if anything getting rid of fees improved the participation by lower middle income groups in particular but also in general. Getting rid of third level fees certainly did not do any harm to the levels of leaving certificate students going on to third level. Bringing back fees or introducing a loan scheme apart from crippling lower middle and middle income families could also deter many young people from going to college and why would a country that wants to rebuild its economy and to have a skilled and educated workforce want that to happen?
Back to Cian’s point in his article. I got the sense from Prime Time that Fianna Fail might be having second thoughts on the fees issue. Both economically and politically bring back third level fees could be the straw that would break the camel’s back.
- Joanna
P.S. Simon – point taken about an 100 per cent increase on 0 being infinity!
Joanna
And just to prove further that maths is not my forte the increase between 1998 and 2004 of leaving cert students going to college from 44 per cent to 55 per cent is a 25 per cent increase. And the increase between 1998 and 2004 of leaving cert students from the socio economic background skilled and semi skilled workers from 32 per cent to 50 per cent is a 56 per cent increase. Which makes my point even more!
Joanna
Begob Joanna with Maths skills like that you’d be a finance minister if you had joined Fianna Fail.
interesting debate thanks for contributing
Joanna, your point that there was a significant increase in participation from skilled and semi-skilled backgrounds is well taken.
Though I think it is possible to over work the figures. Suppose participation was 1% among a certain background. And now it’s 2%. That represents a doubling, an increase of 100%. Yet still 98% of that background are not participating. So the figures can be used each way.
But I think given the extraordinary changes in Irish society — and the Irish economy — that were happening throughout the 90s (beginning much earlier of course), I think you are over-selling the fees issue as a driver in participation. It is undoubtedly far more complexe than that.
As in every debate though, it is often politically convenient to replace a complicated picture with a simple one, ironing out important nuances in the process.
Certainly I would like to see more research and analysis on exactly why particpation rates changed over the last 15 or so years. I say this, as pointed out, not as an opponent of ‘free fees’ but in the interesting of understanding the problem better before making what amounts to a strategic decision
Tomaltach, I take your point too. And as Simon has pointed out leaving cert students from the non manual group havn’t improved their rate of participation in 3rd level since 1998 and we need to establish what the deterrent is for that group as regards going on to college. Is it as Dan has said the level of Higher Education Grants or is it other factors? The heftily increased third level registration fee of €1500 from this September will be quite a financial burden for many lower middle income families, particularly with more than one child in college in the one year.
And thanks Jer. Maybe if like Minister Batt O’Keefe I get a Dental Economist to help me on the sums I might make a good Fianna Fail Minister:
‘O’Keeffe embarrassed over fee revenue forecast out by €400m’
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0919/1221773888288.html
- Joanna
Joanna, it is quite true that FG claim co-credit for the introduction of free fees. But FG isn’t ‘my party’ in the sense of it doing what I tell it to do and hence it being my responsibility to answer for the party. I happen to disagree with the party on whether or not this was a good idea to do in the first place, I did so at the time and still do. Though technically I was, if I recall the timing correctly, a paid up member of the Green party at the time fees were removed. (what can I say, I was young and restless and damn it my libertarian streak needed satisfying.)
I don’t deny that participation rates have increased nor that for some the existence of fees might have put people off. But I think it’s effectiveness in doing what it said on the tin does not represent a good use of the monies involved. And what was said on the tin at the time was that this measure was about removing a block for students from lower and lower middle income families and increasing participation so that going to college was about your ability and not affordability.
And it didn’t really do that. Fact on low incomes we didn’t pay fees and so it wasn’t an issue in making the choice. The cost of college was all about having the money to live on for 4 years. And that cost was never properly dealt with. The fact is that with the removal of fees there has also been a dropping in the proportion of people doing what are seen as ‘hard’ courses in the science and engineering fields, because people thought they could do any old thing and sure what did it matter if they didn’t have to worry about getting a job at the end sure they could work in the service industry whatever that was. When people had to think about the cost involved they were a little more hard headed about doing something that would lead to a career or that’s my impression of students over the last decade.
I would admit to having a problem too with the principle of ever increasing participation rates in 3rd level. I don’t believe that the case has been adequately made that we need 70% of the population to have gone to college. If it is needed for them to function on society then it is an admission that secondary level is failing young people. I would much rather see a post secondary one year course or period of national service (non-military) that marked a young person’s entering into the adult world before going to college or staring work and that involved them living away from home and getting some understanding of the grown up world and what citizenship involved.
It’s only an aside, but though I would find myself disagreeing with much of where you are coming from online, either here or on the IT blog. I do think you set a good benchmark for other public representatives in making a case online.
Thanks Dan. You also (future public representative in your case I could wager?)
Joanna
I wouldn’t wager too much on that happening. I suspect I’m too short and to the point for most voters. Still that won’t stop me trying.