Head over to our T
The (bad) politics of third level fees
Read more about: Education, Feature Gallery, Uncategorized 
The first round of CAO offers went out today, but those who have done well enough in their Leaving Cert to proceed to university may be the last ones to do so for free. The return of fees was probably inevitable even before the economy ran dry. Even so, the performance of the Union of Students in Ireland (USI) on the issue over the past year or so is surely enough to send even the most well-disposed observer into paroxysms of contempt.
The “union”, long a staging post for would-be politicians with more ambition than ability (sorry, Eamon) has at least been consistent in its approach. Its flat refusal to consider charges for tuition in any form, ever, is straight from the Ian Paisley playbook. It’s about as helpful in resolving the issue at hand.
The arguments for the return of fees in some form are considered, even among many students, to be pretty strong. In a nutshell, free fees contribute to the chronic underfunding of our universities, they haven’t improved access to education for underprivileged students, and they constitute a subsidy to the middle classes that has allowed ambitious parents to shell out huge sums on private schools, grinds or both at second level.
This was all canvassed on irishelection in a lot more detail recently, so I don’t propose to go into it again. In any case, it’s perfectly legitimate to support free third level education as a noble ideal and a worthwhile investment in Ireland’s invisible infrastructure. The point is that, regardless of the merits of the issue, the USI have made an almighty balls of the realpolitik here.
First, simply refusing to contemplate something isn’t constructive. The USI know that the current situation is considered by university heads and the Minister for Education to be untenable. But they haven’t offered an alternative solution to the funding crisis.
Fair enough; there probably isn’t one. But if the government is therefore determined to bring in fees, you’re better off engaging with them to try to bring about a system that would work best for students. If you liked free fees because it allowed for wide access for education, for example, you need to try to shape the emerging replacement policy such that it preserves as much of that ideal as possible.
Look for a state-backed student loan scheme; more bursaries for those without the requisite means; more and better local authority grants. Look at the problem of underfunding and offer to support the solution that hurts students the least - whether that be the Australia-style deferred payment system, or a graduate tax, or straight-up cash on entry. Simply throwing a tantrum ensures that the government ignores you and brings in fees the way it wants them, with no input from students’ representatives.
Such a policy was unfortunate 18 months ago, but is downright stupid with the economy in meltdown. Any sympathy from the great unwashed for paying feckless students’ way through college is sure to have evaporated now that everyone else is having to melt down granny’s jewelry to balance the books.
If you’re unconvinced that resistance is now futile, it’s worth noting that many colleges will charge €1,500 per student in 2009/10. Calling this a “registration fee” rather than, well, any other kind of a fee, doesn’t really disguise the fact that students are paying for their education already.
Today’s Irish Times story is a good example of how divorced from reality these people have now become. The USI’s refusal to consider the matter in a nuanced way puts them in the invidious position of criticising Maureen O’Sullivan TD when she makes the point that free tuition hasn’t done anything for the marginalised kids she has taught and represented for decades. Credibility like hers has to be earned, lads - don’t go telling the heir to Tony Gregory what would benefit the inner city. Being self-important doesn’t make you important.
So if this “union” wants to achieve anything other than prove its utter irrelevance, it urgently needs to acknowledge reality and start working within the system. Only then does it stand any chance of securing the best deal possible for the people it purports to represent.
In reality there is already a graduate tax. It’s called income tax. 3rd level graduates make more money than those that do not go through the 3rd level educational system. As a result they end up paying more income tax. The amount of income tax will of course be partly attributable to the value of the education they received. The more the education was worth, the more money they get paid, the more income and other taxes they will pay.
Additionally the more qualifications and expertise they gather over the course of their career, again the more income they receive and the more tax they pay.
Of course there’s a very easy way around a graduate tax, emigration. Rather helpfully because of freedom of movement within the EU anyone that happens to study a European language to a sufficient level can go work in other tax systems rather easily. Failing that, the UK is a nice option or of course getting a sponsored visa elsewhere. It would be interesting to see the revenue trying to extract such taxes out of other EU governments.
The other issue of course is that of competition. There’s always continental institutions, maybe of whom offer a wide variety of course through English should an applicant not speak the local language. By re introducing fees of whatever variety the Irish institutions will have opened up a rather large field of competition for themselves. They will then not only be competing against the other free alternatives but against a far larger field of options. How Irish institutions would fair in such a situation remains to be seen. This conversely might result in far lower funding levels due to a fall off in applicants. (a quick google gave me a years graduate tuition in medicine €6,000 cheaper in Budapest than in Dublin. This is unlikely to be entirely representative though. Cost of living would likely be substantially cheaper too though).
Indeed USI have spoken out against one form of “free fees” as recently as last week.
http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2009/aug/16/dail-staff-receive-free-third-level-courses/
From the article;
President of the Union of Students in Ireland (USI) Peter Mannion described the initiative as “revolting”.
“There can be no excuse made for providing these government and university staff with a free further education. It shows where the priorities of the government truly lie. It is favouritism and it is blatant double standards. Even if you are working in any part of the civil service, even if it is personal development, you should pay for your education like everyone else in Ireland.
“In a time when the government are trying to push in fees, this is revolting. We will be asking these very people if they, too, will accept deferred loans and proposals for fees.”
End of quote
The USI president bizzarely appears to oppose an employer funding or subsidising third level education for the employees, or at least they oppose it when the employer is the state.
It seems to me to be a very bizarre stance for a students’ union to take.
Err….”In reality there is already a graduate tax. It’s called income tax. 3rd level graduates make more money than those that do not go through the 3rd level educational system. As a result they end up paying more income tax. The amount of income tax will of course be partly attributable to the value of the education they received. The more the education was worth, the more money they get paid, the more income and other taxes they will pay.
Additionally the more qualifications and expertise they gather over the course of their career, again the more income they receive and the more tax they pay.”
I hope you’re not a graduate because it does not follow as night follows day that simply because you’re a graduate that you will earn more money. Many do but not all. Nor is it true that the “more qualifications and expertise they gather” the more they will be paid. By your logic people who didn’t go to college should be getting a refund on their income tax.
The most damning criticism I see the USI receiving from this article is that you are able to peddle some of these arguments with a straight face. Granted, the Union has tried to inform the country of the fallacy of such twisted logics, but clearly not enough.
For one, the Union has a policy of supporting the current model of funding – ie state funded tuition fees and a ‘small’ contribution by students towards admin, registration and student services. This policy wasn’t pulled out of a hat – other possible models have been discussed and debated by the Union at its congress and its councils.
The reasons behind continued support for this model are clear:
By keeping entrance to third level as financially barrier free as possible, it is a much fairer system, and allows students to attend based on merit, rather than wealth. There has, in fact, been an increased uptake in third level across the board since free fees were introduced, with many education experts stating that if a student can make it to leaving cert level then financial situation no longer dictates whether or not he/she will attend college. The problem, of course, is getting students from certain areas or financial circumstances to 6th year – and that is something Ms.O’Sullivan should be very aware of. The USI can do very little to improve assistance for primary and secondary, but it has infact campaigned for some very good and productive initiatives in the past to improve retention at the lower levels.
Now, as to the alternatives you suggest, a quick look at global systems show that it would be idiotic to adopt someone elses model. The australian system which seems so popular in Ireland is derided in it’s home country by students, graduates, the media and politicians. It has left their education system in massive debt (even compared to ours) and is currently under review. The UK system has seen a big drop off in third level uptake from the lower classes, because even if the payment is deferred, it is still a massive disincentive. Plenty of studies show that those from underprivileged backgrounds are far more debt averse.
Again, this is why the USI maintains its position. Also the fact that a knowledge economy really is a good idea – especially now. Also the fact that graduates do pay back, as was mentioned above in a comment. More than 2/3 graduates pay in the higher tax band, which is much higher than the average. This way the state gets to tax the benefits of higher education, without placing a hurdle for students to overcome at the beginning of their education or careers.
Further, higher education benefits everyone – the whole country. Large numbers of graduates encourages investment, job creation and the development of a strong skills economy – this has numerous trickle down effects which benefit even those who didn’t attend college.
Finally – the USI has campaigned for better grants, and has done so for years. Thousands of postcards were sent in a campaign a few years ago, the grant has been a main point in the annual lobby of the oireachtas members over the past few years and has always been a pillar of USI policy.
USI is not being a truculent child clinging to something undeserved, it has looked at the options, and though imperfect, believes the current model to be the least bad. (as for funding in general, the fact that O’Brien pay increases went ahead in most universities last year, giving a big bump in pay to professors and high-up administrators shows that there are other problems in terms of funding than just students trying to keep access fair and open)
“The USI’s refusal to consider the matter in a nuanced way puts them in the invidious position of criticising Maureen O’Sullivan TD when she makes the point that free tuition hasn’t done anything for the marginalised kids she has taught and represented for decades. Credibility like hers has to be earned, lads – don’t go telling the heir to Tony Gregory what would benefit the inner city.”
CJ Deputy Sullivan may have earned credibility in many respects but the point she makes that you refer to above is not backed up by the evidence.
According to the most recent survey of who goes to college carried out by the Higher Education Authority together with the ESRI was published in 2006 and covered the entrants to college in 2004. It found the following about Dublin postal districts including Dublin inner city:
“In relation to Dublin, there has been significant progress with eight postal districts having a rate above the national average compared to six in 1998. Dublin 1 (North Inner City) has gone up from 8.9% to 22.8%; Dublin 2 (South Inner City) up from 19.5% to 29.5%; Dublin 24 (Tallaght, Firhouse) up from 26.1% to 40%; and Dublin 17 (Priorswood, Darndale) up from 8.4% to 16.7%. Dublin 14 (Rathfarnham, Dundrum, Clonskeagh) at 86.5% has the highest rate of admission with Dublin 10 (Ballyfermot) at 11.7% having the lowest rate”
(http://www.esri.ie/news_events/press_releases_archive/2006/who_went_to_college_in_20/index.xml)
In otherwords the inner city more than doubled its participation rate at third level in the 6 years from 1998 to 2004, that followed the abolition of fees in 1997.
Joanna, we did all this back on the previous post about this. It is hard to be as sure as you seem to be that it was free fees only that increased participation and not the increased levels of employment and prosperity that increased participation levels across the board. Nor that it represented money well spent in that regard. Not to mention that the opening/expansion of the ITs in Tallaght and Blanchardstown in that period would have played a part too.
If you take your line of argument those that argue free fees increase access can’t win. Its stated the participation rate didn’t improve and then when I counter that with the stats that show the participation rates in fact did improve the goal posts are changed to well thats because there were more RTCs or places or more people had jobs. Those factors might increase the absolute numbers going to college but the point I am makinng with the states is that the percentages from disadvantaged areas and disadvantaged backgrounds improved after the abolition of fees. Its no coincidence that a community college in my constituency sent its first student to study medicine in Trinity a few years back, nor that the same school sends many to third level now despite being in one of the officially designated most disadvantaged areas in the country.
Can anyone tell me how the figures in the inner city compare to increases across other areas of Dublin?
i.e, What was the average increase in the numbers going to college in the Dublin area since the change in fee structure (and subsequent change in employment rates etc etc) and then compare that figure to the figures quoted by Joanna… wouldn’t that be a better indicator as to the impact on free fees in disadvantaged areas?
Mark,
I’ll see what I can do.
In the meantime you might be interested in reading this Irish Times Article from October 7 2003 article the link to which I attach about Collinstown Community College, Neilstown, which is the school I refer to above. According to the article partication in third level increased by 500 per cent from 1997 to 2003:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2003/1007/1065395238079.html
I appreciate there may be many factors as to why this 500 per cent increase happened but I, along with Labour Party and Niamh Bhreathnach who abolished fees, am convinced removing the psycholical barrier that tuition fees imposed was an important factor in increasing participation in places like Neilstown.
I’m not averse to the idea that the removal of a psychological barrier helped improve disadvantaged students’ vision of third level, however, is it not fair to say that the €1,500 year-on-year minimum entrance fee is a barrier too now? Would we not be better abolishing that in favour of a post-education cost?
I can’t see how the system can continue in its current state. I agree with CJ when he says the USI is offering no alternative, to a system that’s a mess. This is particularly evident outside the universities where most disadvantage students go (including me, I went to a community college in Blanch and then onto Ballyfermot College of Further Education) – and most USI member don’t. Things must change, and being pragmatic about, this cannot be done solely through the tax system because our tax generation won’t match it…
Do you not agree? Is the system really good enough as it is now?
Joanna, that article isn’t freely accessible as its part of the IT archive (the irony is steely).
I’m sure that Simon did this dance in the previous post on this, about how given the lower base that the % increase from the lower income groups was going to be higher compared to the higher income groups which were pretty much at saturation before free 3rd level fees.
The point is that you can’t prove that free fees alone were the cause of increased participation and what you seem to be ignoring for reasons unknown (perhaps ideological) are the personal narratives of people who were from low income background such as myself and other people I went to school with for whom fees were never the issue. Maintenance was.
Dublin was the exception when it came to 3rd level participation compared to other parts of the country in terms of rates of participation from those in the unskilled and semi-skilled categories. I believe that was because outside the big cities and Dublin was the worst for this, there was more direct mixing of children in the typically one or two schools in town and this meant that bright children saw that they could compete with the children from better off background.
In Dublin it would seem with the income segregation on a near school by school basis that there was a self reinforcing mentality about 3rd level both positively and negatively depending on your school’s catchment area. Fees were not the problem. And they still aren’t.
Dan,
There is a subtantial body of opinion that either way (whether the increased participation by the disadvantaged can be linked to free fees or not) bringing back fees would be regressive and impact more on those on lower and middle incomes than those on high incomes.
This is what former F.G. T.D. and current Principal of Collinstown Community College, Brian Fleming, had to say last year in the Irish Times on the matter:
“This debate about re-introducing fees is a false one. They say universities are underfunded, but so are primary and secondary schools – and no one is talking about charging fees for them,” says Fleming. “If anything, it would be a retrograde step to re-introduce them. Fees might be aimed at well-off families, but the income limits could easily be revised downwards. We’re working hard to encourage a culture of ambition among kids in the area. The absence of fees can only help that.”
Just to go back to Mark’s question – in the likes of Dublin 1 and Clondalkin participation at third level doubled in the 6 years surveyed in the HEA/ESRI report whereas in the country as a whole the participation rate went by a quarter during the same period. And I have made the point before that from 1986 to 1997 before fees were abolished the participation rate by three lower middle income groups declined (HEA Report ‘Who went to college in 1998′). A plausible explanation for this that has been made to me, is that faced with exhorbitant college costs children from lower middle income families at the time were more likely to choose a job if they could get one over a college place, particularly if their own parents had not been to college.
Joanna, just so we have some frame of reference can you tell me what in your view is “lower middle income” in terms of a percentage of the average industry wage or the minimum age. The reason I ask is in this debate I’ve heard people refer to those on the average industrial wage as lower or lower middle income when it would obvious that the average should be middle-middle income.
I must dig out the old thresholds and see if I can update them so people have some idea what we’re talking about. No one, not even the government, is suggesting that people on the minimum wage should or would have previous paid fees in the old system.
Dan,
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. According to the study of entrants in 1998 that trend was reversed and their participation increased further in the years that followed. Some of those in those three groups would have qualified for a grant and many of them would have been above the income limits. It either was an actual financial barrier or a psycholical barrier and the Labour/FG move to abolish fees removed that barrier.
I don’t know exact salaries at the time for the workers in the above three socio-economic groups but I do know from the experience of my own parents with one income coming into the house, a teachers salary, and 3 children in college at any one time without grant aid, that third level tuition fees were crippling the “middle classes” that had children at college.
Its easy to say the move benefitted the “middle classes” as if middle classes are high rollers. That was not the way it was for the middle classes then and nor will it be in the current recession. You could be earning a lot more than the minimum wage and experience hardship if third level tuition fees are reintroduced for your children.
Could you please provide a Euro figure Joanna. Realistically anyone from in income background of €60k+ would be “Well off” in terms of our society, though our politicians earn significantly more, considering themselves only “slightly” above average. If free fees didn’t bring in many people from the sub €30k background then there is a significant body of PAYE workers that would say that it has failed as anyone above this, while not well off could be considered to have gone to 3rd level in any case due to the economic situation of the last 15 years.
The Labour Party’s introduction of “Free” fees was nothing more than a play to those who were already attending, with a fuzzy side effect that it might have a negligible possitive effect on those at whom the scheme was publicly marketed.
The PAYE argument is a complete fallayc as there are plenty of non-graduates earning in excess of €100k in this country down to their own inginuity rather than the perceived income effect of 3rd level education. The reality is, you eran according to your skill and ability, not your education.
Joanna, a key problem that has to be addressed in any new system is the one you found yourself in with “3 children in college at any one time”. The previous system was very, very poor at making allowances for multiple children to be in college at the same time.
The barrier for those from low income backgrounds as I’ve said again and again was living costs not fees. It is true as you say that the burden increased in the mid and late 80s for those in the middle classes, but the economy was frakked and we had high taxation across the board to pay the bills for FF’s previous stint in government. But let’s face it a teacher (even with a single income, which after all was the norm then) is a middle class job, no one is suggest the middle classes are high rollers but some needs to tell people on 50/60K that they aren’t the new poor either.
It would astound someone from another jurisdiction who was reading this that the Labour representative from the home with the middle class job (with the prospect of the good pension down the line) is telling me the guy in Fine Gael who is from the unskilled background who went to college on a maximum grant which I had to supplement with work and paid no fees because our income was so low that the elimination of fees was about ‘my people”s lack of access to college. I’m not having a personal go here, and I’ve no doubt that with 3 kids in college it was a hell of a struggle but it wasn’t the struggle of those on low incomes. It was a different problem and it was the situation you found yourself in that free fees alleviated not the one I or people like me were in.
Dan,
Like James Connolly who called for free education up to the highest university qualification, I don’t believe you should discriminate between me from my “middle class” background (teachers weren’t that well paid back in the 1980s by the way) and you from your unskilled bacground, when it comes to something as beneficial to all of us in society, as educating our people to their maximum potential. Brian Fleming is right, why are the same arguments not put forward in relation to primary and second level education. The reason? Unfortunately some people still see third level education as a privilege as opposed to the right that Labour founder James Connolly saw it to be.
Dee Dee,
Fact is that every socio -economic group increased its participation rate in college follwing the introduction of free fees and much of the improvements in the poorest economic backgrounds began with the introduction of ESF funded coures in Regional Technical Colleges. About 65 per cent go to third level either here, to the North of Ireland or to Britain and elsewhere. If you think most of them (middle class label or no middle class label) are well off enough to afford third level fees at what would be today’s level of fees if they were introduced you are mistaken.
In the day job, I represent my employer on a HEA committee. A senior manager there delivered a presentation about who is and who is not getting into college these days. The problem these days is with the lower end of the middle classes — children of lower grades in the civil service, for instance: they are the ones falling behind as participation in third level increases.
It’s disappointing to find Labour Party representatives clinging like limpets to the rock of ‘free fees’ and when all other arguments in favour of this failed policy run dry invoking the spectre of James Connolly in its support. The abolition of undergraduate fees was a disaster for universities, for third level students of those institutions and, as a piece of social engineering, hasn’t delivered much either. And as discussed on this site many times over, it’s also a distraction to the wider debate of how our third and fourth level education system should be funded in the twenty first century.
The reason why the same arguments don’t arise about free education at first and second levels is that we’re talking about children. It’s in the interests of society as well as a duty of any democratic State worthy of the name to provide for the basic education of its children.
Advancing to third level is a choice. Not everyone wants to make that choice, nor indeed is everyone suited to further formal academic education. What’s important is that as a society we facilitate people in having the choice to go onto third level, if they’re academically qualified to do so, irrespective of their social or economic background. No political party in this State, or the USI, has a monopoly of wisdom on how this can best be achieved.
In the 1960s there were a limited number of County Council scholarships for children from poor backgrounds, which was then replaced in the early 1970s by the grants system. Dan’s point above is very well made: maintenance costs were far more important than anything else in determining whether one went to university or not because unless you got the required numbers of points you couldn’t get into the system in the first place and qualify for the grant that automatically paid your fees and a pitifully small proportion of your living costs. And without working, you certainly couldn’t afford to stay in it. Like him, my own personal experience was of jobs as a cleaner and dishwasher and waiting on students from better-off backgrounds than mine in the university cafe during term time and summers spent in England working in factories, pubs, and shops to make enough money to meet accommodation and meals costs on return to College in the autumn. Free fees don’t change that maintenance costs barrier for students from poorer backgrounds.
As for the influx of students to IOTs following the introduction of ESF funded courses, it’s worth bearing in mind that the ESF money was subsidising those courses, (we owe a debt of thanks to the taxpayers of Germany and the rest of the EU for their largesse at the time), without which the State could not have afforded the large increase in student numbers. Or the proliferation of IOTs either, which appears to have been established more in line with local political pressure than any joined up thinking about what our twenty first century education infrastructure should look like. At least the present crisis should afford an opportunity for some fresh thinking on that score and the merging or abolition of some of the surplus IOTs capacity.
As for the point of the difficulties posed for middle class families with two or more children at university at the same time, I don’t get that. In the mid 1980s, when my own children were babies, I started paying into an investment scheme that was specifically designed to start paying out when my children would reach College going age. Most other middling income families that I knew of were doing the same. The scheme served the dual purpose of forcing me to put some money aside as well as providing security that when the day arrived, we would be able to afford to pay our children’s college fees. As it turned out, the introduction of free fees meant I could cash in early and spend the money on myself. Those sort of financial products disappeared and I feel very sorry for parents today with children of College age who relied on the free fees regime continuing and haven’t had the opportunity to make appropriate savings for their kids’ education.
The money spent on the free fees regime might have been better invested at pre-school, primary and secondary levels to give children a chance to qualify for a third level option at the end of their schooldays. Alternatively, the funds might have gone into higher maintenance grants for students from poorer backgrounds. The abolition of fees for all was a blunt instrument that now turns out to be a failed policy. In the current economic circumstances it is no longer sustainable. The McCarthy report didn’t make any observations on it because the Government had already indicated proposals would be brought forward to deal with it. Unfortunately, the debate about third level funding is now taking place in the worst of all economic environments and instead of meaningful reform of the system – we didn’t just create a construction bubble, but a lot of other ones as well, including in parts of the education sector – a blunt axe may fall that could set us back for generations. Constructive suggestions from the Labour Party representatives on meaningful reform of our education system and how costs can be cut would be a welcome contribution to the current debate rather than this constant political posturing on free third level fees.
Joanna, “Brian Fleming is right, why are the same arguments not put forward in relation to primary and second level education. The reason? Unfortunately some people still see third level education as a privilege as opposed to the right that Labour founder James Connolly saw it to be.”
But I doubt even Connolly would have thought it likely that we would be anticipating that 2/3 school leavers would be going onto 3rd level. And as Veronica says at primary and secondary we’re talking about children. At 3rd level we are being asked to fund adults in their education, and not always in “something as beneficial to all of us in society, as educating our people to their maximum potential.” I’m not entirely sure how many more politics, or economics or media graduates we need compared to doctors, engineers or maths teachers. Yet the system as currently designed is intended to give the 17 year old what they what, not what is beneficial to society.
Veronica,
Since the abolition of fees the participation of students from postal districts such as the Dublin 1 and Dublin 22 has more than doubled. In Collinstown Park Community College a school in one of the most disadvantaged parts of the Country the participation rate has increased by 500 per cent.
The overall admission rate in higher education in Ireland has increased by 11% since 1998 But the biggest improvement has been Skilled Manual workers, almost doubling to a range of 50-60% compared to 32% in 1998. and the Semi and Unskilled Socio-Economic Group has improved from 23% to between 33-40% over the same period.
Three socio economic groups whose participation rate at college was declining when fees were charged, reversed that decline following the abolition of fees.
The arguments are not drying up as you suggest. Its just that you can’t get a better argument for not bringing back fees than the statistics that show that getting rid of fees meant that more people with low and modest incomes went to college. And its worth just repeating and repeating them especially when ill informed people suggest that those from disadvantaged areas did not benefit from the abolition of fees.
Dan,
So when you got the grant so did the children of comfortable farmers, self employed business people with good accountants and alongside that the rich wrote their fees off through tax breaks (Labour abolished the tax covenant system the same time as it abolished fees saving the exchequer 40 million pounds a year as a result don’t forget).
You say how you were the child of an unskilled worker. Well after fees were abolished a much higher percentage of the children of unskilled workers got to go to college as per the stats above.
An in relation to James Connolly’s time – did what percentage do you think went to primary and second level then? He still thought education was a right. Make a right and more people will go and that is what has happened.
Joanna, those people still get the grant aid. And let’s remember that Labour (and DL and FG) could have just abolished the covenant system, increased the income threshold for the means test for fees and told little Richie Rich to suck it up.
And you’re correct that after fees were abolished a much higher percentage of the children of unskilled workers went to college as per the stats above. Whether they “got to go” because of the absence of fees or not is an entirely separate matter. No one is denying they went, the question is was it as a result of the removal of fees and if so did it represent the most effective means to do so. I do not doubt that there may have been some individuals who decided to attend 3rd level. Again this is not mean to be an either/or argument, either for fees or against. It is whether as you’ve asserted the abolition of fees the right way to achieve an increase.
There is almost something Pastafarian about this notion that the increase in attendance by a sector that wasn’t paying fees must have been either solely or primary due to the abolition of fees.
As for rights, we have the right to marry too, well ok most of us do, but that doesn’t mean the state is out there organising spouses for us, or sponsoring us on dates, though there are times I wish it had.
Joanna,
I know several posters have already pointed this out to you, but since you persist in ignoring it, I’ll try one more time. Your statistics are meaningless since they cannot demonstrate ’cause and effect’ between increased third level participation by lower income groups and the removal of fees. Other factors are probably more important in accounting for the increase, such as it is.
The free fees policy has failed because it was ill conceived in the first place. And by the way, all of us who take an interest in this subject know all about the ending of covenants. However desirable, that does not justify taking out a sledgehammer to kill a flea. The best way to tackle taxation issues is to either abolish them or phase them out over time.
Where we are now, it is apparent that the bad effects of the policy outnumber any marginal success it may have had in improving the rates of participation by lower income groups. And crucially, we can’t afford it anymore anyway.
But if Labour insists, as you seem to do, that free fees must remain a core education policy could you please enlighten us as to what cuts you would introduce in the forthcoming budget to fund third level, in particular the universities, to maintain the quality of undergraduate education and high quality research output at postgraduate level?
Do you agree that the number and geographical range of IOTs require major rationalisation, including immediate closure of some of these institutions and slimming down of course options in the remainder? (There can’t be many takers for some apprenticeship courses in the construction area these days nor indeed for diplomas in landscaping and gardening planning either, can there?)
Do you favour redundancies both at administrative and teaching levels in third level institutions and/or drastic pay cuts, plus letting go of all temporary staff etc?
Do you favour cuts in state support for research spending and in what areas?
Or would you prefer to introduce cuts further to those outlined in the McCarthy report at secondary and primary levels, including a major overhaul of teachers contracts, elimination of supplementary payments for ‘posts of responsibility’ etc., immediate increase of retirement age, removal of 30 days sick leave entitlement, immediate increase in pupil teacher ratios, reduction of pension entitlements etc.?
Since Labour will be in government – unless FG get an overall majority, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility – after the next election, we are entitled to know exactly what cuts you would introduce both in order to meet necessary public spending reductions as well as funding the continuance of the free fees regime at third level without bankrupting the institutions in the meantime. Answers are awaited with interest.
Veronica,
The purpose of abolishing third level fees were to get a higher percentage of those from low and modest income backgrounds to go to college. That has happened. Whether there is a direct link or not you cannot argue that the move did not achieve its purpose. The numbers went up and that was the plan. And it looks very likely that there was a direct cause and effect considering when fees were in place some socio economic groups were declining in their participation rate at college.
You don’t have to agree with the Labour viewpoint on this but you surely you accept that we had a conviction that people have the right to free primary, secondary and third level education and when last in Government we acted on that conviction by abolishing fees. Fine Gael, and Fianna Fail don’t seem to have convictions on this particular issue they think third level education should be free unless there are bankers that need to be bailed out with billions of taxpayers money and then we must bring fees back. That seems to be your argument too.
Joanna,
Your interpretation of data in this area belongs to the “ Aeroplanes have wings, birds have wings; therefore all birds are aeroplanes” school of analysis. Enough said!
As for your ‘conviction’ that people have a ‘right’ to free third level education, this is a most useful clarification. The Labour Party policy is therefore that the adult offspring of Dan’s Mr Richie Rich are just as entitled to have their third level educational preferences fully funded by the taxpayer as people from low income families, and irrespective of the cost of adhering to this principle of ‘universality’ to the taxpayer.
The money that has been used and will be used for further bank recapitalization, and borrowings for NAMA or whatever form of Asset Management Agency is finally set up to clear the banks of their toxic assets, is off the government balance sheet. The debate on funding for third level education arises in the context of plugging the €20bn hole between taxation revenue and government expenditure on day to day provision of public services and salaries. Hence my questions about what choices for cuts in expenditure your party, in government or as a responsible opposition at this point in time, would make and what major reforms of the educational infrastructure you would endorse or alternatively propose?
That’s what is at issue here; not some cheap populist political suggestion that there’s any direct trade off between fixing the banking system and maintaining free fees at third level, (because there isn’t), in which FF and FG are the nasties who will bail out banks and developers and leave poor Mr. Richie Rich’s offspring starving outside the gates of their chosen universities to pay for it. Any government, including any government in which the Labour Party is a participant, will have to fix the banks. At the same time, they will also have to fix the hole in the public finances.
So I await answers to my questions.
Joanna, “Fine Gael, and Fianna Fail don’t seem to have convictions on this particular issue they think third level education should be free unless there are bankers that need to be bailed out with billions of taxpayers money and then we must bring fees back.” that comment is beneath you. Suggesting that Labour, and Labour alone, are the moral guardians of free education in Ireland, at 3rd level and probably beyond, is completely overreaching. Even I would admit that most FFers wish would be that college should be free to those who can’t afford it. Where I differ with FF and with you, and even with my own party to some extent is in how this is done. FF, well the minister does anyway, believe that looking for the money at the time of entry is the way to go. And I hold that looking for some claw back post graduate is the better route.
It was a FF minister remember, Donogh O’Malley, who pushed through free secondary education, and land the ground work for the ITs and DCU and UL. Labour do not have any exclusivity on this issue.
Dan,
Liam Delaney over on irisheconomy.ie posted this link to an Institute of Fiscal Studies analysis of the UK fees system. Available at : http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn45.pdf
Apologies if you’ve already seen this, but if not I think you might find it interesting as background information, particularly on the question of living costs for poorer students, tapering of loans and payback mechanisms and continuing levels of exchequer support etc. Overall, this paper would tend to support your preference for claw back as the fairest and most socially equitable route to go down.
I have an open mind at this stage on how third level education should be funded. Hopefully the Minister will publish his proposals once he has obtained Cabinet approval and it will be possible to have an open and intelligent debate on the best way forward, plus a willingness on the government side to consider amendments or viable alternatives before any new system is imposed.
Veronica,
What UK students pay for fees is about the same as what our students are already due to pay this September for their college registration fee.
Dan,
The Government is proposing now to reintroduce fees (and all the other cuts planned) in large part because they have to pay 90 billion to buy toxic debt and pump billions in to the Anglo Irish Bank. I don’t think Labour have the moral ground but any party should be held to account and Fine Gael and Fianna Fail both voted for the blanket guarantee of all banks and debts good and bad last September. NAMA and the pumping of billions into Anglo Irish are a direct consequence of that original decision.
Bringing back fees has nothing to do with funding third level education in a better way.
Dan,
Just to clarify that what I meant to say is Labour don’t have the moral high ground. I don’t think FF or FG take these decisions because they are immoral. And to be fair FG have voted with Labour since on the issue including in relation to the decision to allow the Government have the power to extend the original guarantee beyond 2010 if it so decides in 2010. Sometimes I find it hard to resist a bit of political point scoring.
Veronica,
The monies already given to the banks (in particular the Anglo Irish) on foot of the guarantee was money that could have been used on capital projects such as the building of schools thereby providing jobs and a bigger tax take thereby reducing the deficit and the pressure to bring back third level fees or other cut backs.
The expenditure of the monies off balance or not effects the Government’s ability to spend on other things. And on that note heres a very striking statistic about our bank guarantee from Gene Kerrigan in his Sunday Independent column a few weeks back:
“By the way, what percentage of GDP have various euro area governments committed to bank guarantees? It ranges from zero in Malta to 21 per cent in Belgium. The average is 7.5 per cent. And Ireland? No less than 214 per cent”.
In relation to your question about what cuts Labour proposes I meant to answer that earlier – Labour did suggest 2 billion plus savings that could be made in its prebudget submission which can be accessed here:
http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing/123866707065788.html
It includes proposals regarding the ending of certain tax reliefs. In light of the €291 million tax foregone to the exchequer in 2007 to 400 of Ireland’s riches people under tax reliefs ( as revealed in reply to a question Joan Burton put to the Revenue) surely getting rid of some of the tax reliefs that allowed this to happen should be a priority (see report in today’s Irish Examiner – some of our top earners paid no income tax what so ever.
Joanna,
“What UK students pay for fees is about the same as what our students are already due to pay this September for their college registration fee.”
No, Joanna. Another example of wishful thinking on your part. Since 2006, universities in the UK may charge up to £3,000 Sterling for course fees. And do. However, there have to be real concerns about college registration fees in this country which are entirely arbitrary and have rocketed way ahead of inflation since tuition fees were abolished. It seems obvious that the institutions are annually increasing registration fees as a substitute for income lost from tuition fees. One concern I would have with any proposals brought forward by the current Minister is how they would deal with the registration fees. If it is proposed to leave the current registration fees system intact, and then levy tuition fees in addition to it, this would clearly be unacceptable.
Pre-1996, fees by Irish universities were charged at about 30% of the teaching costs of courses. What percentage of ‘course costs’ it is proposed that fees will recoup in the future is also worth watching out for.
Pre 1996 also, children of employees of Irish universities and other third level institutions had their fees waived for entry to the university where their parents were employed. Presumably, no politician or party would support the continuance of this freebie for the children of third level employees under any new fees regime, now would they?
Under European Social Fund rules, the IOTs, then the old RTCs, were not allowed to charge fees for ESF funded courses as a condition of that support from the ordinary taxpayers of the rest of the EU. Many diploma courses at these institutions have since been transformed into degree courses. The question arises as to whether IOTs should be included in a new fees regime or whether they should continue to be exempt even though the ESF funding support has long disappeared, as well as the raison d’etre for many of the courses on offer and the existence of some of these colleges at all.
Restoring liquidity to the national banking system and recaptialising the banks is a national imperative and there are different views as to how this can best be achieved. The borrowing that has to done to buy out the banks’ bad assets or to recapitalise individual institutions so that they can hold onto their banking licences is NOT money that would be available to do other things. Whether it’s nationalisation (as Anglo Irish shows,) or an amended NAMA, or Fine Gael’s ‘good bank’ proposal, the end result will be the same: a massive bill for the tax payer that cannot be avoided. The debate on fixing the banks is about which of these proposed solutions will cost the taxpayer least in the long run, not about avoiding upfront costs of getting the banks working again. There’s also the thorny issue of which of these solutions will achieve their purpose, and unintended or predictable consequences of adopting one over the other as the preferred solution. The reality is we wouldn’t be borrowing funds to resolve the banks’ issue, nor indeed emptying the coffers of the National Pension Reserve Fund for this purpose, if we had any alternative. And without the ECB and the €130bn they’ve provided thus far, our system would have collapsed by now.
So, as I put it to you in previous posts, the free fees issue arises in the context of tax revenues of circa €33bn in 2009 versus expenditure on government services and salaries of €46bn and how to bridge that gap to reduce our very expensive borrowings to fund teachers’ and university lecturers’ and doctors’ and nurses’ and other public servants’ pay and keep the hospitals and schools open and provide decent levels of social welfare support to the growing numbers of unemployed and pensioners. The bottom line is that we can’t keep borrowing to fund the deficit and if we don’t take action ourselves to reduce the borrowing requirement the lenders will stop lending. Overnight.
Thank you for the reference to the Labour Party’s pre-budget submission last April with which I was already familiar. Unlike FG’s submission, various ideas from which were incoporated in the Budget by the Minister for Finance, the most memorable item in Labour’s package was the ridiculous proposal for an uncollectible 1c tax on text messages, indicating that the authors’ own mobile bills must be paid for entirely by the taxpayer so they never have to deal with any bills or research ‘free texts’ deals from the various suppliers.
‘Sometimes I find it hard to resist a bit of political point scoring’, you write. So do we all, Joanna. But in the many discussions and arguments I’ve had on this site on political issues of the day with Dan Sullivan and others of a different political persuasion to my own – 25 years a member of the Labour Party – it’s the absence of cheap political point scoring or ad hominem commentary that makes engagement in the debate progressive, informative and worthwhile.
Now, since Labour will likely be in government any time soon, could you please answer the specific questions I put to you several posts ago on cuts options for the education budget to fund the continuation of free thrid level fees?
You are right and I had forgotten the new top up fees and how British Universities may charge up to 3000 plus because of new legislation. The new fees have only been charged for a bout a year. When top up fees were originally introduced numbesr applying for college dropped in the U.K (Scotland does not charge fees by the way). This year apparently applications are up again. I don’t agree with the British Labour Party having brought back fees in that country. Many countries such as Sweden don’t charge tuition fees and have a loan system for the costs of going to college.
You favour a clawback scheme as mentioned by Dan – if the Government bring back fees it will probably be upfront because the Governnment objective in bringing back fees is to raise revenue.
As for your question about how Labour would fund free fees. The fact is they already did in part at least when in the same year as fees were abolished so was the tax covenant scheme saving the state around 40 million pounds a year:
See this article in the tribune for details:
http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/oct/19/tax-reform-savings-could-pay-college-bill
In relation to our pre budget submission there was a lot more in it than just the proposal you mention, and as I have said we already have a record of bringing in more tax to pay for fees when we moved to abolish the tax covenanting scheme.
Labour would not just rely on cuts to balance our books. We would not have prepaid for 2 years the states contribution to the pension reserve fund, a move that was castigated in this recent article by Fintan O’Toole here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0728/1224251491628.html
Labour would not have given a blanket guarantee to the Anglo Irish Bank thereby reducing the amount of money that had to be paid out of the pension reserve fund to bail the bank out (so far?).
We would borrow for capital projects such as primary school buildings, which would be fast tracked so as to create jobs and thereby a larger tax take for the exchequer and a renewed confidence in our economy. Two countries that have had some measure of either fiscal stimulus or public expenditure that are already moving out of their recession are Germany and France (France according to the IMF is cushioned against the recession largely because of its large public service, and the fact that it has free healthcare for e.g.).
Their are alternatives to the Government approach of slash and burn and Labour has been to the forefront in putting forward suggestions in that regard.
As for political point scoring, as the only T.D. from any party that contributes to discussions on this site I do my best to do so in a meaningful way. And I have done my best to back up what I have said just as you have. I have been just as specific as you have been.
We mightn’t agree with each other on this particular issue but I don’t think either of us could be accused of not putting our case.
I think that some posters are being a iittle hard on Joanna here. The statistics seem to be, at the very least, consistent with the argument that free fees helped to improve access to third level education for people from certain ‘disadvantaged’ backgrounds. Given that some people seem to have taken it for granted that free fees haven’t helped, this is important.
And while we can all agree that universities are underfunded when compared to the universities and third level institutions of our competitors, it is unfair to blame this on the removal of third level fees. Yes, the removal of fees meant that 3rd level institutes found themselves more dependent on the state, and the state failed to fund the universities at a competitive level, but it did not need to be that way. Things could easily have been different with a little good government. If we believe good government to be beyond the ability of the Irish political classes, why not just forget the whole democracy thing and make me King?
If your aim is establish equality of access to third level across Irish society, then free fees are not enough. They help, but registration fees, considering parental income and failing to provide living/accomodation funding need to be tackled as well. Free fees probably helped those living on the doorsteps of universities a lot more than those who’d have to travel one hundred miles to get to one.
The way that the government treats young adults is pretty terrible, and if it were any other sector of society then there would be outrage at the discrimination they face. When it comes to entitlements, they are treated as children, but when it comes to responsibilities, they are treated as adults. Not to mention the fact that they’re banned from holding certain offices of state. We criticise the Brits for discriminating against Catholics, but think its acceptable to discriminate against young, adult citizens. Imagine that the government had decided to cut dole payments to people aged 60-65 instead of those who were under 20. We’d all hearld it as some sort of injustice, but the reaction to the cuts has been pathetic from those who would protest in their thousands if a similar attack had been made based on old age, gender or sexual orientation. Imagine if the average 30 year old was denied access to their right to services based on the fact that their parents were well off. That person would react with anger, but the same individual probably finds it unremarkable that the young face such discrimination.
What’s often lost in the discussion of improving entrace levels to university for the disadvantaged groups, is the rights of the individual. Yeah, it’s wonderful that more working class people are going to university, but that should not be at the expense of others. If a 19 year old’s parents are unwilling to support them (and under law, they are not obliged to) then that 19 year old will still be assessed as though they had access to their parents’ wealth. That’s pretty disgusting. Yes, we know that if we supported the 19 year old in that situation, then all parents would refuse to support their children and the system would be put under strain, but that is not excuse for having a system that is essentially unjust. It’s a sign that the system needs to be urgently changed.
Another issue that really needs to be tackled is the payment of tuition fees for those who choose to study part time. If somebody cannot go to college full time for financial reasons and chooses to study part-time, the governments taxes them, and then refuses to contribute toward their tuition and disqualifies them from receiving any form of grant. Yet, we are told that the government supports creating a ‘knowledge economy’.
We need a new approach to third level education, and while the current economic environment and the decisions the government have already made about dealing with our immediate economic problems make it far from an ideal time to make dramatic changes, we need to decide on what our goal is, and move toward it. If nothing else, I think we should all be able agree that paying a large, flat, up-front fee upon entrance to college is something that needs to be avoided as it moves us a step back from any of the goals we’ve been discussing here.