For 12 years, Don Thornhill has been a key policymaker, first as secretary of the department and then as head of the Higher Education Authority. As he steps down, he reflects on the Irish education system in an interview with Seán Flynn.
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND SCIENCE
Q. You were secretary of the department for seven years. how is the department regarded and why does it suffer from an old-fashioned image?
A. There is a view across the public service that the Department of Education is a very inward-looking. It is a department which is responsible for a huge array of activities - in my time ranging from special education to exams, school buildings and so on. All of those problems end up at the door of the department.
There is an expectation right through the education system that relatively small problems and challenges will end up on the desk of a senior official - or even that of the Minister.
This means the department finds the focus of its energy is spread very wide and the department is not very good at telling the public what a good job it does. The reality is ahead of the image.
History also tends to give it an old-fashioned image. Church control of education linked the department in the public mind to what was seen as a conservative force. The pro Irish-language ethos among some officials may also have contributed to this oversimplistic view.
Q. One internal report three years ago said the department still lacked the breathing space to develop policy because of its huge in-tray. Is there still a deficit when it comes to policy and planning?
A. Real progress has been made in devolving powers to new agencies. But I would think that the time and attention that senior officials can give to policy development is still under serious stress. The problem is that policy development is exactly what other Government departments are looking for from the Department of Education and Science.
Q. For all that, the strength of our education system has been a huge factor in our economic success. So, the department must be doing something right?
A. Education has been a key factor. But there are others. The fact that we are English-speaking, membership of the EU, our connections with the US, our consistency on tax/industrial policy and the work of the IDA, the best organisation of its kind in the world.
Our education system has been outstanding for generations, but we only reaped the economic benefits when Ray MacSharry pushed through the fiscal correction the economy needed in the late 1980s. Once that correction was in place, the other positive factors I mentioned came into play, including a young, very well-educated population.
Q. How do you rate the two Ministers you worked closely with - Niamh Bhreathneach and Michael Martin?
A. I was fortunate. Both had a passionate commitment to education. I will not talk about individual ministers. We have a non-political civil service in his country, something we take for granted. But it is relatively unusual compared with other countries to have people who have not come though the political system at the top levels of policy making and administration. That works because of what I call the "contract" - senior civil servants have an obligation to give good objective advice, to call situations as they see it with their political masters.
They have an obligation not to become politicised, not to make political calculations but to be aware of the political realities. They also have an obligation to implement the lawful instructions of the minister, not to drag their heels or chip away at a policy if they disagree with it.
The other quid pro quo is that ministers need to feel safe in the department. The senior civil servant cannot tell tales out of school.
THIRD-LEVEL FEES
Q. The decision to abolish third-level fees was taken in 1995 while you were secretary. In retrospect, was this a major policy error?
A. At that time, the personal financing of third level was in crisis. The grant scheme was seriously inequitable. Some correction was needed. But the abolition of fees has created other problems. The big problem now is the financial sustainability of our third-level institutions. Fees are off the agenda for the moment. But there is a key issue - how do we finance the third-level system to a level which would make our institutions internationally competitive in a research-intensive era? We also need to examine if the wider interest is served by giving free third-level education to people who can afford it.
My own view is that the solution is not the return of all fees. But if we accept that we need a larger private contribution to the cost of higher education then we need to be more imaginative.
We could examine an option where fees would be free for the first three years of college and levied thereafter. This would recognise that the early years are developmental, whereas the later years are more career-focused.
I think it is unlikely that the taxpayer alone will be able to finance the kind of third-level system we will need, so we need to be innovative.
My own view is that people should not enter training for the professions when they are 17 or 18. I find it interesting now how law firms like to recruit people other than law graduates; medical schools are very interested in postgrads.
THE FUNDING CRISIS AT THIRD LEVEL
Q. The Government's policy broadly appears to be that the colleges should stop whining. Instead, they should focus on securing more foreign students and building closer links with industry. Isn't this part of the answer to the funding crisis?
A. There is, as the OECD report pointed out, a lack of a coherent national strategy for third-level; so this should be the main policy priority.
Yes, internationalisation is part of the answer. More foreign students here will generate more revenue and it will also raise standards. Chinese and other students will demand the very best.
I think the importance of getting financial contributions from industry can be overstated. Even in the US, business will only support a relatively small amount of activity because the pay-back is so long.
THIRD-LEVEL REFORM
Q. You are someone who is very much associated with what has been called the reform agenda in the universities. Isn't there a danger that the arts and humanities will lose out in the drive to make our colleges more responsive only to economic needs?
A. One of the things which bedevils education debate is the either/ors. We must do either this or that. The truth is we must do both. We must protect and nurture arts, humanities and social sciences.
But we don't live in a world of humanistic abstraction and contemplation either. We live in a world which is fiercely competitive. And we have to have the technological and knowledge-based capacity to compete in that world. We need to promote both the arts and the sciences.
I don't think we should get overly excited about the current internal debates in some universities. One of the strengths of the system is its openness to inquiry and debate. We should not be surprised that change has generated controversy.
Q. Are you impressed generally with the Irish education system?
A. I worry about the way the middle classes seem to be drifting away from public secondary education, especially in Dublin. Public education and health systems will remain strong once they are supported by the middle classes. But there is a worrying drift away to fee-paying schools and grind schools. I think we may need to alter our funding approach to ensure that it differentiates more between the public school and the fee-paying school.
Broadly, we are not big spenders on education by international standards and we underinvest in research. But, if you look at our outputs they are very good. I have met major multinational employers and asked them what they thought of Irish graduates. Generally there was only one complaint - that they could not get enough Irish graduates.
We also get very good value if you look at the international league tables at primary, secondary and third level.
TRANSPARENCY IN SCHOOLS
Q. You are a great advocate of accountability at third level. Should there be more at second level?
A. I have problems with league tables as they do not measure the overall contribution that the school has made to the development of the pupil. But parents should have access to key performance measures and inspectors' reports. They should know about the quality of leadership and the quality of management and overall performance in the school.
This would actually be of great assistance to all those hugely committed people - teachers, school managers etc - who want to do better. One of the things that lack of transparency encourages is a drift towards a lower level of performance. We need to change this.
