Political parties need to show more courage and tackle the issue of education funding, writes Noel Whelan
BATT O'KEEFFE deserves some credit for acknowledging this week that the development of a new national strategy for third-level education must involve a consideration of whether third-level fees should be reintroduced. Noel Dempsey showed similar courage when he was minister for education in 2002 and 2003, although he got little thanks for it within his own party or elsewhere.
In 2003, Dempsey presented the question as primarily one of social equality. Those equality arguments are even more valid today than they were five years ago. The issue has now, however, also reasserted itself because of concerns about funding shortfalls which threaten to undermine the further development of our third-level sector.
The Minister for Education's comments were met with knee-jerk criticism from across the political spectrum. All our political parties guard against anything which might be seen as encroaching upon the middle classes.
The most defensive response has come from the Labour Party, which likes to cite the abolition of third level fees in 1995 as their iconic achievement. They see it as akin to Donogh O'Malley's introduction of free secondary education in the 1960s and they resent that it is not universally appreciated as such.
O'Malley's initiative was opposed at the time by some educational interests, but in hindsight it is widely acclaimed as visionary.
By comparison, criticism of the abolition of third-level fees persists. Many argued then and argue now that abolishing third-level fees actually leads to greater inequality in the second-level sector and undermines the funding base for third-level colleges.
It was also argued then and can be argued even more justifiably now that free third-level education is socially regressive because it requires all taxpayers to subsidise a level of educational attainment which by its very nature will always be enjoyed disproportionately by the wealthier classes.
Labour's attachment to free third-level education for all derives from the party's selective adherence to the universal provision tenet of modern socialist ideology that there are some basic public services which should be provided to all, regardless of means. There are, however, a number of central weaknesses in the "universal provision" ideology as applied to third-level education.
First, education to third-level, while potentially beneficial to all, is not the most basic need. Needs like food, shelter and primary healthcare are not provided free to all but are met through social welfare payments, social housing initiatives or medical card schemes - all of which are means tested.
Secondly, third-level education can be distinguished from primary and secondary education not least because it is exponentially more expensive to provide per head and because the real costs for a student in third-level education is in the opportunity cost of employment income forgone.
The Labour Party and others have claimed again this week that the abolition of third-level fees has given rise to an increase in third-level participation by lower socio-economic groups.
However, the evidence for this is flimsy.
There is even less evidence that the introduction of third-level fees now for those who could afford them would reduce the take up of third-level places from the lower income sectors.
Since 1995 there has been a rise in third-level college participation from all sectors due to the economic boom, significantly enhanced education attainment at secondary level and because increased investment in third-level infrastructure has led to a greater diversification in the types and locations of courses.
The other blunt, if politically unpalatable reality, is that upper middle class households are now better equipped than ever to make a contribution to the cost of third-level education.
Their income levels are much higher now and the income tax burden they carry is significantly less.
When fees were abolished in 1995 the income tax rates were 27 per cent and a higher rate of 48 per cent. Now they are 20 per cent and 41 per cent respectively.
In addition, these households also benefit from significantly enhanced child benefit payments. Many wealthier middle class households have diverted these additional resources to buy their children an advantage even earlier in the education cycle in private schools, or with "grinds".
Whether we reintroduce third-level fees is a strategic question for our education system, our economy and for how we organise our society. When presented with short-term political pain for medium or long-term gain our political parties usually shirk it. This time they all need to show more courage.