NUI seemed like a mechanism to ensure some quality control and harmonization as the university system expanded.  Maybe it’s not needed any more.  But its abolition seems to come as news to NUI itself, which still has an optimistic-sounding website and Maurice Manning just into his term as Chancellor.  Indeed, the list of chancellors is a mini-history of Ireland, with Dev holding the slot continuously from Independence to his death, then TK Whitaker for 20 years, then Garret Fitzgerald, and now Manning apparently to bring down the curtain.  I suppose that an organizational cull has to start somewhere but it seems like a strange place to start.  Hopefully the universities didn’t have their degree parchments  for 2010 printed already.

According to the notice, the decision to set up a school was taken at a meeting in Dublin late last month. The meeting was attended by members of the education committee of the Saudi Shura Council, an unelected body whose members advise the Kingdom’s government, and Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Ireland, Abdulaziz Aldriss.

“It was decided in the meeting to establish a Saudi school to teach the children of Saudi citizens and students residing in Ireland,” the website says.

The Saudi embassy insists the plans are at a very early stage, and a spokesperson yesterday declined to give further details. In a statement, the Department of Education said the Saudi government had not been in contact with the department regarding the matter.

Speculation has mounted within Ireland’s 40,000-strong Muslim community over how big the school might be, and whether it will cater for non-Saudi Muslims.

According to the embassy, less than 15 Saudi families live and work in Ireland, and more than 400 Saudi nationals study here, though the latter number is expected to rise in coming years following the Saudi ministry for education’s recognition of more Irish third-level institutions.

Ali Selim, a theologian based at the Islamic Cultural Centre in Clonskeagh, Dublin, welcomed the plans. Asked about speculation within the Muslim community that the school may incorporate secondary education, he said that if this proved correct it would “achieve a long cherished Muslim ambition” in Ireland.

The same “Islamic Cultural Centre” that is the permanent headquarters of the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) whose President, Yusuf Qaradawi (known as the “Sheikh of Death) has reportedly called for suicide operations against military and civilian targets in Iraq and Israel, praised child-martyrs, and has instructed that homosexuals should be burned or stoned to keep Islamic society “clean of perverted elements”. Qaradawi also headed the International Association of Muslim Scholars (IAMS) (again based in Ireland) and was a founding member of the Muslim Brotherhood. In that context we should be wary of an education-system endorsed by Clonskeagh.

Returning to the question of a Saudi school in Ireland:

The plans were welcomed by the parents of Shekinah Egan, the teenage girl whose request to wear the hijab at her school in Gorey, Co Wexford, last year prompted the principal to call for official guidelines to be issued on the wearing of the hijab in State schools. Ms Egan’s father, Liam, who lived with his family for several years in Saudi Arabia, praised what he described as the Kingdom’s “strong commitment” to education both domestically and overseas.“An Islamic secondary school is vital and should be a priority for the community,” he said.

The news will raise concern on a number of fronts. Following 911, the Saudi government came under pressure from the Bush administration to remove alleged incitement to hatred against Jews and Christians from school textbooks. A 2004 Saudi royal study group found that the kingdom’s religious studies curriculum “encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the ‘other.’ ” Since then, the Saudi government has claimed repeatedly that it has revised its educational texts. The former Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, lauded the supposed moderation of the revised textbooks/ But as the Washington Post reported in 2006, Saudi textbooks continue to villify non-Muslims – even referring to Christians and Jews as “apes” and “swine”. The quotes below are derived from a 74-page review of the supposedly sanitised Saudi curriculum distributed by the Saudi Embassy in Washington:

FIRST GRADE

” Every religion other than Islam is false.”

“Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________.”

FOURTH GRADE

“True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly.”

FIFTH GRADE

“Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives.”

“It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam.”

“A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion.”

SIXTH GRADE

“Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God’s power.”

EIGHTH GRADE

“As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus.”

“God told His Prophet, Muhammad, about the Jews, who learned from parts of God’s book [the Torah and the Gospels] that God alone is worthy of worship. Despite this, they espouse falsehood through idol-worship, soothsaying, and sorcery. In doing so, they obey the devil. They prefer the people of falsehood to the people of the truth out of envy and hostility. This earns them condemnation and is a warning to us not to do as they did.”
“They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied [with them].”
“Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God.”
“Activity: The student writes a composition on the danger of imitating the infidels.”

NINTH GRADE
“The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills.”
“It is part of God’s wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment].”

“Muslims will triumph because they are right. He who is right is always victorious, even if most people are against him.”

TENTH GRADE
The 10th-grade text on jurisprudence teaches that life for non-Muslims (as well as women, and, by implication, slaves) is worth a fraction of that of a “free Muslim male.” Blood money is retribution paid to the victim or the victim’s heirs for murder or injury:
“Blood money for a free infidel. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, whether or not he is ‘of the book’ or not ‘of the book’ (such as a pagan, Zoroastrian, etc.).
“Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, and the blood money for an infidel woman is half of the blood money for a male infidel.”

ELEVENTH GRADE
“The greeting ‘Peace be upon you’ is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others.”
“If one comes to a place where there is a mixture of Muslims and infidels, one should offer a greeting intended for the Muslims.”
“Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect.”

TWELFTH GRADE
“Jihad in the path of God — which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it — is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God.”

We must ask – as a society – if we are prepared to allow the promotion of hatred of non-Muslims (referred to as Dhimmis in Sharia law), women and homosexuals into our education system ? We cannot have two-standards – one for Catholicism’s role in our education-system and another for that of Islam. If – as Fintan O’Toole claims in the Irish Times – “agents of foreign state should not control our schools” – then that equally ought to apply with respect to the Kingdom’s attempts to export its borderline interpretation of Islam into our Repubic. Taking account of the horrors of the Ryan and Murphy reports exposing decades of rampant abuse of Irish children at the hands of the Catholic Church, as well as the rampant incitement to hatred promoted in the Saudi education-system, it is difficult for an objective person to come to any other conclusion than that it is time for the dangerous-liason between religion and education to come to an end. In the context of an increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-faith Ireland, the continued segregation of children on the basis of religion – which increasingly constitutes a de-facto segregation on the basis of nationality – must come to an end. The taxpayer and the State have no stake in perpetuating division, , anti-semitism and anti-Westernism in this Western, Christian country. I speak as an atheist – but one who recognises the comparative tolerance of Christian culture relative to much of the Muslim world – notably with respect to the rights of women and homosexuals. Tolerance is a two-way street.

Last year, a Federal investigation in the US found that a textbooks at a private Islamic school in northern Virginia taught students that killing adulterers and converts from Islam was permissible:

Textbooks at a private Islamic school in northern Virginia teach students that it is permissible for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts from Islam, according to a federal investigation released Wednesday.

Other passages in the school’s textbooks state that “the Jews conspired against Islam and its people” and that Muslims are permitted to take the lives and property of those deemed “polytheists.”

The passages were found in selected textbooks used during the 2007-08 school year by the Islamic Saudi Academy, which teaches 900 students in grades K-12 at two campuses in Alexandria and Fairfax and receives much of its funding from the Saudi government…..The commission said it obtained 17 of the academy’s textbooks through a variety of channels, including from members of Congress. The texts did appear to contain numerous revisions, including pages that were removed or passages that were whited out, but numerous troubling passages remained, according to the panel:
* The authors of a 12th-grade text on Quranic interpretation state that apostates (those who convert from Islam), adulterers and people who murder Muslims can be permissibly killed.
* The authors of a 12th-grade text on monotheism write that “(m)ajor polytheism makes blood and wealth permissible,” meaning that a Muslim can take with impunity the life and property of someone believed guilty of polytheism. According to the panel, the strict Saudi interpretation of polytheism includes Shiite and Sufi Muslims as well as Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists.
* A social studies text offers the view that Jews were responsible for the split between Sunni and Shiite Muslims: “The cause of the discord: The Jews conspired against Islam and its people. A sly, wicked person who sinfully and deceitfully professed Islam infiltrated (the Muslims).”

This question is another moment of truth for the Irish Left, many of whom have campaigned tirelessly for the rights of persons historically disenfranchised or downtrodden in Irish society – such as women and gay people. They face an inherent contradiction between their belief in “multiculturalism” (which promotes diversity for its own sake) on the one hand – and the rights of those who would lose those rights if the Saudi system of Sharia Law were to be introduced into this country. It is impossible to separate an education system from the culture it supports. If we allow the seed of Saudi Wahhabism to be sown in our schools, we can wave goodbye to women’s rights, gay rights, and freedom of religion as the political system of Saudi Arabia shows. That country outlaws homosexuality and conversion of Muslims to another faith on punishment of death. Premarital-sex is punishable by up to 100 lashes, with adultery punishable by stoning to death. If the Irish Left mean what they say when they call for a more pluralist Ireland, then here is their opportunity to prove it. They should oppose the establishment of this school – and all schools which undermine the cohesion and mutual respect upon which pluralism and tolerance depends.

It’s about a year since An Taoiseach announced plans to develop ‘The Smart Economy’ (the successor to ‘The Knowledge Economy’, remember that?). In those twelve months we’ve heard constant mention, plugging and referencing of the phrase. It has become a Government mantra, said constantly when the state of the public finances is discussed. On Drivetime today Brian Lenihan spoke about it, on the Nine News Brian Cowen picked up the baton and later he handed it onto Eamon Ryan for Prime Time. You can be guaranteed we’ll heard it mentioned every few hours in the next week too.

“We need to settle the public finances with a view to developing a model for sustainable growth through the Smart Economy, going forward”, don’t say it doesn’t ring a bell.

I can’t find an explicit definition of what the Smart Economy would be constituted of, but if asked, I’d guess a Government representative would describe it as something like; “an economy that has a workforce that is able, educated, competent and competitive in areas and skills which will be needed by companies in growing industries, to attract those companies”. Fair?

Government representatives have said time and again that companies which are ‘web-innovators’, green technology developers and companies operating in areas like “nanotechnology” are the types we need to attract into, and keep in, Ireland. This, they say, will revive the Celtic Tiger “going forward” – a.k.a in the long-term. This, presumably, would be done through ‘up-skilling’ our workforce, incentivising the study of maths and science courses at third level, whilst focusing research and development (R&D) funding on faculties working in said areas.

So the Budget should reflect the above… eh, but it doesn’t seem to.

While, as flagged prominently by the minister in his speech, the IDA grants-to-industry budget has been upped by 21% it stands alone against cuts in other “smart” areas. Worth noting before I go on; the IDA is responsible for attracting foreign investment, so I don’t think any of that money will be going to Irish companies. In contrast, Enterprise Ireland which is tasked with nurturing indigenous entrepreneurship have had their grants-to-industry budget cut 7%. In monetary terms this means the IDA gets an extra €15m, while EI loses €7m.

The balance between cuts and investments in the IDA and EI is therefore €8m, which is obliterated by the 7% slash to the Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) programmes fund. In 2009 the STI fund received €318.6m in Government moneys, next year there will be €296.7m available to it; a cut of €22m.

On top that, Fás’s long-term labour force development section – Training and Integration Supports – is also hit, this one for 25% or €21m. Furthermore the biggest budget section in Fás, ‘Employment Programmes’ loses €23m (5%) of its €440m budget from 2009. So on total balance, we’re now down €58m.

Now, I note and welcome the €90m investment in the Fás ‘Temporary Employment Subsidy Scheme’, however, I wouldn’t normally categorise it as the type of long-term “smart economy” measure we’ve been preached to about by the Government. But I will for a moment, for the sake of argument.

Taking the above figures as the “Smart Economy”, including temporary employment, we’re looking at a €32m or so investment via the department of enterprise. But that whole profit figure relies on the inclusion of the temporary employment fund increase, otherwise it is a €58m ‘Smart’ cut. That’s just one department. Note: I didn’t include the €150m cut to the Continuing Professional Development programme because its a pilot fund.

The other department which I’d guess would drive our soon-to-be-Smart Economy is education & science. The funding alterations there are quite similar to enterprise however, some up, some down, but overall it appears to be a ‘smart’ loss.

While the Schools Information and Communications Technologies Activities funding goes up 115% (€30m), the Strategic Innovation fund is cut 31% (€8m) and R&D Activities money (to Universities) are hit for €4m, (or 5%). That leaves a balance of €18m, which is crushed by the 30% lump taken from research grants to Institutes of Technology, a €49m cut.

Over the two departments, including the temporary employment fund figure, we’re looking at a €1m improvement in funding for the Smart Economy. Without said figure, it’s a €58m cut.

So between the two main ‘Smart’ departments, from my back-of-a-Budget-document figures, I’m not so sure it’s smart to call this a ‘Smart Economy’ budget.

Every classroom in the country is to get a teaching laptop, software and digital projector over the next three years as part of a €150 million plan for ‘smart schools’ launched today [Monday] by the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen TD.

The new action plan has been produced by the joint advisory group established by the Minister for Education and Science, Batt O’Keeffe TD, and builds on the earlier strategy group report, ‘Investing Effectively in ICT in Schools’.

Sounds good.

Now with the state of the economy as it is and the government looking to save money at every step and considering that software is a large part of the cost of modern computing.  You would think that the government should consider. Open Source software to cut down the costs. For general word processing and computer operating they have benefits. Also if we were to start introducing computer programming to classrooms they offer a good environment for this. True there are pit falls to open source software but with a limited budget open source might allow the spreading of resources and getting more hardware in schools.

Now the advisor board has this to say on open source software.

OSS can be characterised as software for which the source code can be read, modified and acquired free of charge or for a nominal fee. It is important to note that even though a free product may seem at face value an attractive proposition, software licence costs are only one aspect of the total cost of ownership of any ICT solution. For a valid comparison to be made, extrinsic factors, including hardware, software, training, support, transition costs and exit costs etc, and intrinsic factors (accessibility/usability/language support/collaboration) must be fully considered and evaluated in the procurement decision.

The Advisory Group recommends a comprehensive approach to considering fitness for use and that total cost of ownership be adopted when considering all software options, such as open source, proprietary and mixed solutions.

Which seems fair enough it is not a clear cut case. But one thing that bothers me is this.

The advisory group was chaired by Paul Rellis, Managing Director of Microsoft Ireland

Are we really going to get a proper debate if the chairman of the advisory group has a vested interest in the decision on open source or closed source?

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.

The topics covered in Science are

2.1 Ireland: Mathematics, science and technology graduates, 1997-2006

2.2 EU: Mathematics, science and technology PhDs awarded, 2002-2006

2.3 Ireland and EU: Gross domestic expenditure on R&D, 1998-2007

2.4 EU: Gross domestic expenditure on R&D, 1997-2007

2.5 Ireland and EU: European Patent Office applications, 1996-2005

2.6 EU: European Patent Office applications, 2005

2.7 Ireland: Private households with a computer connected to the Internet, 1998-2008

2.8 EU: Private households with Internet access, 2004-2008

So how do we do?

Well for Maths Science and Technology PhDs we ranked 8th out of the EU in 2006 (about 7th 2003-2006). Which is not bad, pretty even with France. But if you look at the numbers of people in Third Level you see Ireland has a high percentage. Second highest in the EU. Which is great. But what if you take the figures for PhD’s per 1000s and graph that against percentage in third level in 2005 (most complete figures).  Well you find that we are in 12th  with 1.89% below the EU average of 2.2%. So we are not good at converting University graduates in to science PhD.s We by the way have above average number of Science Graduates per head of population in the EU .

For patents filed Ireland ranks below the EU average. In Ireland we file about 60 patents per million people. The average is over 100 pre million. While the likes of Finland and Germany rank over 250 pre million. So why is it that we rank so low. We need to roughly double the patents we file just to get to the average. For a supposed knowledge economy this is poor.

Next up. Houses with Internet. I am sure readers Damien knows these figures off the top of their heads. But Ireland ranked 10th for internet access. Above the EU average of 60%. Not great not bad. However only 43% of those houses have broadband.  While no comparable figures are available for the rest of the EU in this report. It does suggest we have a lot of catching up to do. Considering the likes of Sweden Holland and Denmark are at around 85% shows how far we have to go.

So over all in Science. Ireland is not great. This really does highlight how far we really have to go to become a knowledge economy.

As the Indo says, it is likely to be after Lisbon by the time the measures the cabinet agrees upon are made public. The minister reportedly prefers a ‘deferred payment’ system – a loan system. It’s thought this would ween the nation back onto the idea of individually and overtly paying for a third-level education and thus minimise the political damage – the hit to voters pockets wouldn’t come for another three or four years, post General Election.

You have to hand it to O’Keefe, he has serious bottle. This is an issue that his predecessors have failed to address (in Mary Hanafin’s case) or failed to follow through on (in Noel Dempsey’s case) for successive terms – that’s forgetting about Martin and Woods before them.

I believe I’m in the minority amongst my peers, I support the return of student payments – with certain caveats, which I’ll get to later. Maybe that is because I don’t attend a prestigious university, I’ve witnessed the free fees system let down the disadvantaged students it was implemented to protect. I’ve seen reformed drug addicts and young parents drop out of their course purely because their grant was cut – while hearing luckier students in the same course complain there wasn’t enough parking spaces around the college. Maybe that has shaped my outlook, maybe it’s other things…

Let’s be honest, Niamh Breathnach’s vision for a third-level system that was equally accessible to school-leavers from Ballymun as it was to school-leavers from Blackrock never materialised. People attempt to pick apart this assertion but the numbers don’t back them up. It has made no difference to the socio-economic status of the average undergraduate. Add to that the fact the sector as a whole has become massively underfunded since abolition – due to Government investment failing to get close to matching levels of inflation over the boom period – and a it’s clear fees must make a return. They’re an economic necessity.

The Union of Students in Ireland (USI) will throw their hands up and accuse the Government of targeting ‘vulnerable students’. The Government shouldn’t listen. Labour will oppose the measures saying the Government are ignoring the core issue of funding in the education sector as a whole, thus neatly side-stepping the real debate. Fine Gael will claim the measures as their own if the Government manage to spin it nicely, otherwise they’ll take the gloves off, pick apart the legislation and compare it negatively against their somewhat vague proposals (which include “changing the rules on philanthropy to encourage the potential for additional funding for the sector“). It’ll be interesting to see how the Greens behave.

Really though, that’s just talk which circles the issue, politics should be left aside. The fact is the ‘free fees’ system has adversely impacted, and will continue to adversely impact, the quality of third-level education in this country, people with experience working in the highest levels in the sector have been saying exactly that for years. Those who will be up-in-arms should look past their own education and consider the impact that a continuously declining system will have on the country as a whole. The time for tunnel-visioned self-interest has passed.

At present we have a high staff-to-pupil ratio and a low spend per pupil, that, a bright future, does not make. It has to change.  To change the sector needs funding. The current system which has been reliant on the combination of overflowing national coffers and the abundant commercial funding of yesteryear just to remain afloat isn’t sustainable. Third-level education will need to be paid on an individual basis or the country as a whole will suffer in the future.

The Government is moving in the right direction, Batt O’Keefe deserves praise for his stance. ‘Fees’ – individualised payments – must come back. There is no other viable option.

-

I said my pro-fees opinion came with certain caveats, here they are

I’ve said the sector needs funding – fees don’t necessarily mean funding. The danger is O’Keefe will introduce individualised payments and not invest that money back into education, resulting in fees without funding. The often referenced ‘Australian Model’ that the minister seems to have based his favoured re-introduction system upon doesn’t allow this, ours would need to be the same. Down under once a student registers for a semester the Australian Government pays 75% of the cost of that student’s period of education directly to the third-level institute. After graduation, when the person is earning above a certain threshold, they begin to pay back the remaining 25% (which is subject to interest rates that match inflation). It’s a system that is widely admired internationally. The problem they have down there is with students moving abroad upon graduation and defaulting on their loans – the so called brain-drain – avoiding this would be crucial to sustaining our economy, there needs to be something in the legislation that incentivises graduates to stay at home.

A specified percentage of the revenue generated from individual input must be recycled into the student support fund (grant system). The current grant system is a mess, it must be one of the main beneficiaries of any individualised payment introduction.

Registration fees must be abolished or minimised – they would be a duplication.

PAYE workers must be protected. In this area Fine Gael’s stance deserves much applause. They have proposed tying payment to PRSI. In the past ‘talented’ accountancy has resulted in wealthy low-tax payers getting their children into the grant system while decidedly middle-class PAYE workers felt the real burden of registration fees, rent and all the other costs that accompany putting students through third-level. It’s of the utmost importance that this is not repeated.

And my final caveat – a rather trivial one – The re-introduction of individualised payments must be accompanied by a campaign in schools and the media encouraging disadvantaged students to strive towards third-level. So many disadvantaged students are not aware that they may be entitled to grants if they get to college, that they or their parents are eligible for certain social welfare payments while they are attending college or that the Government will refund certain expenses they incur relating directly to study – changing that must come with any re-introduction. Some students from disadvantaged backgrounds have a subconscious aversion to working towards college because of the perceived financial burden it would place upon their family, that too needs to be changed over a sustained period.

-

Edit: I wrote the vast majority of this on Tuesday night and had not studied the details on the third-level employment control framework recruitment freeze. I’d in no way support that and would mak it’s non-implementation one of my caveats.

Other than that, hit me where it hurts, minister – s’in d’national interest.

-

It’s worth reading Ferdinand von Prondzynski (President of DCU) for a more on this subject.

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.

NEXT year will mark the end of free third-level education for tens of thousands of students, the Irish Independent can reveal.

Education Minister Batt O’Keeffe last night confirmed he would bring proposals to Cabinet within two weeks which would compel students to pay for their college education.

Now to defend this FF have come out with the tactic they have been using for the last few months and used to defend the medical card fiasco a while back.

“I feel it would be justified to ask those people who are earning quite substantial amounts of money to make a contribution

Now I have to say I love this argument that people who earn more should pay more. All very commie, but yet the most obvious place to apply that logic i.e Income Tax bands has been ignored for the 12 years FF have been in power. (we will see if we get a new band in the budget). But even this logic they use above is reversed in the manner they are planning to have the fees paid.

This is how they seem to be suggesting it works. And you have to love it.

Students would be able to pay fees up-front at a discount or pay the cost, with interest, after they graduate and find work.

So basically if you are rich and can afford to pay it off in bulk you get cheaper university education. Awesome.

Also Science courses are more expensive to run then Medieval English Literature courses. So will students of science degrees be actually financially punished for choosing science? Are even more so then they are at the moment compared to more financially lucrative courses like accountancy?

Free University Education has not been the magic bullet people think it would have been. But it has been successful. The below figures probably have other effecting factors but are still impressive.

Work done by ESRI researchers has shown increased participation by every other social group in college:

• Higher professionals such as doctors, lawyers, engineers — increased to almost 100pc.
• Farmers — up from 65pc to 89pc.
• Own-account workers, such as personnel managers and credit controllers — up from 39pc to 65pc.
• Employers and managers, and lower professionals such as teachers, technicians — remained around 65pc.
• Skilled manual workers such as bricklayers, plumbers, welders — up from 32pc to 50pc.
• Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers such as warehouse staff, caretakers, dry cleaners — up from 22pc to 33pc.

But for the non-manual workers’ category there was virtually no change, with participation rates moving from 24pc to only 27pc at a time of massive expansion in higher education.

But most of all I think free fees tell the world that we are serious about education in this country.

“Deputy Hayes is issuing so many micro-level press releases that trying to digest them is a bit like drinking water from a fire hose.

“Perhaps in the new year, Deputy Hayes will resolve to focus more of his energy on constructive policy-making, lest the huge volume of press releases he issues almost daily frames him as the impulsive boy who cried wolf,” the minister said.

Hayes was questioning the amount spent on the School Broadband Scheme – which if it is like any other broadband scheme in the country is junk. The Minister’s response though does seem to back up a recent impression of the FF and PD ministers in government – they are shaken and badly so. For the first time in tne years they are looking over their shoulder nervously and the edifice on which political success has been built for three elections appears to be crumbling. It is a small spat, a throwaway comment but it seems indicative of where the collective attitude in FF is heading – to get the backs to the wall.