The abolition of college fees last year resulted in a number of anomalies in the funding of higher education students. Part time and evening students did not benefit from the scheme and were still subject to full fees. The recent announcement by the Minister ford Education, Ms Breathnach, that fees of part time students are to be tax deductible lessens the discrimination against mature students. But it still leaves those who are not working or in the tax bracket liable for fees whereas day students are not subject to any fees. Once again it is the less advantaged who are losing out. It would surely have been more equitable to abolish fees for part time students as well.
The latest development is today's report that tax, exemption on fees will now be extended to students" attending private colleges approved by the National Council for Educational Awards (NCEA). Given the pressure for higher education places, the principle of making such colleges more accessible appears to make good sense. But by using the tax rebate mechanist is once again the less well off who will lose out. It is of course, much more cost efficient for the Minister to opt for the tax deduction mechanism, as the alternative system of direct payment would have to be funded from her departmental budgets.
There are good, reputable institutions among the ranks of private third level colleges. And there are some which might charitably be described as "medioacre". Restricting the tax break to those approved by the NCEA is a worthy attempt to maintain an element of quality control. But the NCEA has extended its recognition to a range of colleges whose standards and courses vary enormously. Indeed, the Regional Technical Colleges (RTCs) are so concerned that they have proposed abandoning the NCEA in favour of a central technological university. While the tax break proposal will help some students to afford very good courses in private colleges, there is also a real danger that it may confer a pseudo respectability on courses of a much more doubtful pedigree.
The greatest funding anomaly of all remains the absence of any maintenance grants for Post Leaving Certificate (PLC) courses. Almost 20,000 students attend these courses which make an enormous contribution towards practical training for business and industry. No fees are charged, but whereas school leavers can avail of maintenance grants for university or RTC study or FAS training, there is no provision for maintenance support for PLC students. Given that many of these students come from disadvantaged backgrounds, this represents a profound inequality.
While tax breaks for fees in private third level colleges will bring welcome relief to some hard pressed parents, it is unfortunate that this should have taken precedence over a student maintenance scheme for the PLC sector. The latter, of course, would have involved considerable direct cost, whereas the former simply means a small reduction in tax revenue. The quality and standards of some of the bigger PLC colleges certainly surpass some of those in the private sector. But it would be ironic if the tax break scheme attracted students away from State funded colleges to some of the more marginal courses in private higher education.