OECD Report Leaked in the Media.

by paul c Fri Aug 13, 2004 17:14

not that im for privitisation of colleges etc

what sources of non-coporate funding are there for colleges?

by meme Fri Aug 13, 2004 17:28

One of them is called corporate taxation, whereby you tax corporations to fund educaiton and all other public services.

by chris bond Sun Aug 15, 2004 23:21

I think it would be a good idea to raise corporate taxes by 1-2% points.Corporations are the ones who benefit from being able to avail of a skilled labour force.Having a properly funded education system will be of benefit to them aswell, they could think of it as an investment rather than confiscation of their profits.

by Brendan Ferron Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:58

It is my understanding that the report will call for fees and that the minister will make a statement as soon as the report is published saying that there will be no introduction of fees in the lifetime of this government. THEY WILL NOT BE HAPPENING.

by backhander Tue Aug 17, 2004 04:19

it could hurt profits
and thats now a sin
then they'd all leave the country

and then who would pay the politicians?

by bored in work Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:30

.It is my understanding that the report will call for fees and that the minister will make a statement as soon as the report is published saying that there will be no introduction of fees in the lifetime of this government. THEY WILL NOT BE HAPPENING.'

Where o where oh wise one did you stumble on your understanding? Sinn Fein having good relations with the state at the minute, is it?

Would it take someone hitting you over the head with a hammer for you to cop on and realise that, if registration fees go up - that is a fee.

There are plenty of fees, having falled to get them in two years ago, they are now introducing them much more subtly through the back door.

by shinner Tue Aug 17, 2004 13:37

Well I think it might have something to do with the fact he works for the department of education, also it maybe because he is able to remember what the Minister said not more than a year ago. In any way the minister has stated this on several occasions and reiterated to cabinet prior to this report being made public (more is the pity). It almost seems that you are somehow involved in a process of wishful thinking, hoping that he will try to do it. For me this seems a bit strange?
USI will probably in its own inimitable fashion jump the gun and start protesting before they have even seen the report. They will tell people they maybe coming back, try engender fear in the student population, and all to suit their need to rejuvenate a student movement which is dead on its feet. We will see the re-emergence of the crusty cappuccino drinking CFE member who thinks they have the best opportunity ever to politicise the student movement and kick start the revolution. Meanwhile the 99% of students who go to college in order to get educated will just continue on.
As for the argument for or against fees, why should students form poorer backgrounds loose out on the opportunity to go to college so as the very rich can be subsidised? I am very much in favour of the abolition of free fees with the money being used to directly fund programmes to help poorer students. Forget your entire socialist clap trap, people are being kept of education so the rich can take part.
Also I think we should all comment of the absolute hypocrisy of the labour parties Jan O'Sullivan, talking about the disgrace of the state funding for private schools while the RABBITTE sends his kids to one.
Finally the ability of the USI to totally get the wrong end of the stick with regard to privatisation of education is just off the wall. They obviously never read the submission to the OECD otherwise they would know that no one called for it (privatisation). The HEA stated, and rightly so, that if the main beneficiaries of research in Third Level Institutions is business and as such they should be making a contribution towards its cost, they cited international comparisons to make their case, and made a very compelling case in my opinion. If we are working on pharmaceutical projects in colleges then it is obvious that the industry should be involved. What we will get when this report is published is a knee jerk reaction on the part of student unions, who are often so disconnected from the actual members that they profess to represent its amazing. What we get in SU's is a total lack of understanding of how education fits into the National strategy, or indeed a real understanding of the actual role of education in our society. Many involved in SU's are the un-educated who have either dropped out or rather been forced out and the SU becomes the last refuge before the dole queue.

by Dan - UCDSU Tue Aug 17, 2004 14:32

If you bothered reading their submission to the OECD properly, you'd know that the HEA are hell-bent on seeing the American model of third-level education adopted in Ireland. Of course corporations should fund the education system - but that's what taxes are for. Making universities dependent on direct funding from business, without any democratic mediation, will allow business to determine what research is carried out, as is already the case in America.

As far as fees are concerned, there has been an incessant clamour from all the major players, from the HEA to the OECD, calling for the reintroduction of fees. Dempsey backed down last year, that doesn't mean he won't return to the idea. The constant increase in the registration fee is just a more subtle way of bringing back fees anyway.

If you really believe that THIS government is concerned about equality, after all the evidence of the last seven years, god help you - you really are a trusting soul.

Of course, we student activists wouldn't presume to argue with you - we were too busy drinking coffee to learn about REAL politics. I've never smashed anyone's knee-cap to a bloody pulp, so I obviously know nothing about it. Grow up and drop the sad macho rhetoric if you want to be taken seriously.

by Shinner Tue Aug 17, 2004 15:20

I have no problem whatsoever with students paying for their own education, in fact I believe it is correct that they do. Fact is there is no Socialist argument against the redistribution of wealth from those that can afford to pay towards those who cannot. Quite frankly I couldn’t give a flying fuck if Doctor whoever has to pay for his kids so as others for a disadvantage background can get a chance in third level education, that’s because I am a socialist.
Waiting for a restructuring of the taxation system while those in education are denied equality of access is not viable option. The thing about student unions is that they represent people already able to access education with the majority doing so through private education as witnessed by the origin tables published by the department of education.
As I said earlier there almost seems a hope on the part of USI that the minister will try and introduce fees in order to help their flagging enterprise, and if this does not happen they will simply lie to their students. This is wrong; it engenders fear that need not exist. People should not be led up the garden path in order to try and give SU’s which currently have no relevance to ordinary students a small bit of standing. I think what Ferron suggests, and I think you will find he is probably right, is that the Minister puts an end to speculation on fees as soon as the report is presented. Anybody with some sense would realise this, he knows USI is a spent force and the last thing he will want to do is to breath oxygen into its dying corpse.
Finally, across the world investment in 3rd level research is industry led, without that, well what is the point of research in the first place? Is that not its rationale? Secondly, PRTLI has seen massive investment in 3rd level research, however it still leaves us behind most of Europe, we are an economy who competes on our knowledge, funds must be accessed so as we are on a level playing field with our competitors and the only way this can happen is through partnership with industry, this is relationship can be very positive rather than negative.
Also I retract my comments about SU officers, if you found them offensive I am sorry, nothing will be served by getting into personalities, I wish to debate this issue and be told why I am wrong.

by Paul T. Tue Aug 17, 2004 15:30

Well 'Shinner' I hope you colleague above will appreciate you putting his employment details on an open message board. I'm sure the mandarins at the Dept of Ed. condone staff using their insider knowledge to make statements on indymedia. With gobshites like you as friends, who needs enemies....

by Dan - UCDSU Tue Aug 17, 2004 15:55

I don't have much interest in USI, ever since I've been in college they've been a decrepit organisation and I'm not waiting with baited breath for that to change. Our own SU doesn't "need" fees to mobilise students; we found this year that there were more than enough issues on which to campaign.

It's true, there are some people in the student movement who only care about their own (relatively privileged) members, but we've bitterly opposed them. We had any number of motions passed at USI congress commiting the organisation to support broader campaigns; the sort of people you have in mind stood up and told us that USI should have nothing to do with the privatisation of Dublin Bus etc. But we faced them down and won the argument.

I can't speak for activists in other colleges and SUs, but I can say that UCDSU's activism is grounded in socialist principles; we don't have any time for selfish gits who would be perfectly happy as long as free fees stayed in place. We saw the elimination of the threat of fees as an opportunity to push forward and campaign on other issues, grants for example, that effect people who can't afford to go to college even more than they affect people who can.

The problem with the idea of reintroducing fees as an egalitarian measure, is that we don't have an egalitarian government - we have this one. Everything they've done since taking power shows their contempt for the idea of social justice. They may dress up the fees proposal in cod-socialist rhetoric, but this is clearly the last thing on their minds. In the hands of this government, bringing back fees will inevitably be a regressive move.

Anyway, fees are not the only problem raised by the OECD report. Making universities dependent on corporate funding is just as serious a danger, and there's no question that the report will encourage moves in this direction. If you're not worried about this, you should be - just look at the damage it's done in the US.

by brenedan ferron Tue Aug 17, 2004 15:59

Shinner, I don't work in the Department of Education and Science. I am a lackey in the HEA. What I said was my own belief, I think it makes sense and he will go out of the way to put the rumour of fees to bed straight away.
I am opposed to fees, the only answer to funding education, as is the case for all public services is through reform of taxation. My biggest problem with fees is that they wouldn’t raise nearly enough to solve the problem if they were introduced they would be put up as the answer by government but it would certainly not the solution.
I don't think you know the hard work USI put in on hehalf of students so I suggest you try and find out before you comment.

by Brendan Ferron Wed Aug 18, 2004 11:16

The whole argument being put forward by student unions about privatisation is a false one. They read part of the HEA submission, (one of twenty eight) to the OECD and drew from it that colleges were due to be privatised. This is not the case; instead the argument being discussed is whether research in Universities should be Industry driven or whether the Institution should drive them. The issue of money doesn’t arise since 65% of all research in Irish Universities is paid through private contribution with the rest coming through ERDF (European Regional Development Fund). The Irish exchequer does not actually contribute. The argument being put forward is the American model; quite simply firms draw up research needs and then allow different Institutions to bid for the funding. The current system here in Ireland allows Institutions to put forward research proposals and seek funding. I see no problem why both models can not work hand in hand, this will increase the amount of research space, increase the amount of funding available and will ultimately make our economy stronger and are graduates better skilled. Also I feel that if the opportunity exists to take money from Industry and put it into the education system then we should take it.
So in conclusion, the system being proposed does not mean the privatisation of institutions, which quite simply is wrong. The funding of research is already met by money outside the exchequer so there is no change there (58,000,000 in the next round of the programme for research in third level institutes will be paid by Atlantic Philanthropies alone), and finally it will only have positive effects on the quality of Irish graduates, I know when I was president of my Student Union that my primary focus was on giving students the best education possible.

by Dan - UCDSU Wed Aug 18, 2004 14:27

There WAS a specific proposal to privatise Irish universities. It won't necessarily happen, but the idea has certainly been put on the table.

But there are other problems, quite apart from full-scale privatisation. Moving towards a model where universities are dependent on the private sector for funding, because of cuts in state funding, would be equally damaging. It's perfectly clear that a lot of the people involved in decision-making have this in mind (the people running UCD certainly do - the Strategic Development Plan which guides their current thinking calls for research to be tailored towards commercial demands, with a very different salary system that punishes academics whose work business doesn't find interesting. Of course this is all phrased in tactful language, but that's the basic message).

None of this is inevitable, of course. But endlessly repeating "it'll never happen" is the best way to ensure that it does.

by brendan ferron Wed Aug 18, 2004 14:44

I am sitting with the submission in front of me and nowhere in it does it recommend Privatisation. IT calls for greater autonomy and a removal of the constraints placed on the sector by the DES. Given the current strangle hold placed on Institutes of Technology with regard to course development I guess this to be warmly welcomed.
It says that HEI's should seek to broaden their funding base. And finally that research should be approached in-line with public policy. They say no where about the US model and in fact use it along with about 20 others for comparison purposes.
I think all of these recommendations are correct. By giving grater autonomy Institutions could decide their own direction rather than central government doing so.
Finally the submission says in paragraph 6.6 that any additional funding raised by institutions through private sources should not led to a reduction in exchequer funding as is the case at the minute. This sets out quite clearly that private funding will compliment exchequer funding and not usurp it.
I find it to be quite a progressive document.

by Dan - UCDSU Wed Aug 18, 2004 16:30

"We intend to slash government funding of third-level education, and use the private sector to fill the gap. This will inevitably mean giving corporations great influence over academic content, to the detriment of education. The model we have in mind is the US, where college education is absurdly expensive and government funding accounts for less than half of expenditure."

If you expect to find the above statements in any of the reports that have come out recently, you won't be successful. Funnily enough, when governments and other bodies are doing unpopular things, they tend not to highlight their intentions by using plain language. Rather, they dress it up in nice platitudes, so that you have to read carefully between the lines to see what is actually being said.

For example, I referred to the Strategic Development Plan in UCD and its calls for a more unequal salary system. What the report actually says, of course, is much more waffly, but it's clear what is really meant. When they say "we have to value all staff equally, while recognising the need to incentivise ... at the end of the decade there will be winners and losers" (I'm quoting from memory here, not word for word, but the sense is certainly right), we can take that to mean "anyone who doesn't serve our purposes is going to lose out".

Reading these reports properly requires that we decode the nice, soothing language and find out what is actually being said. Anything else is utterly naive. It's not unknown for a wolf to dress up in sheep's clothing, you know.

by Brendan Ferron Wed Aug 25, 2004 19:22

If you have filters that you apply to a document then you can interpret it any way you want. You obviously have a preconceived belief about this document and are not approaching it with an open mind. I once had a friend argue that the "Lost heifer" by Thomas Kinsella was about snooker and got an A.

by R. Isible Wed Aug 25, 2004 19:35

Brendon, while the document may not call for privatisation explicitly does it not call for many of the pre-requisites for a privatised system?

by brendan Ferron. Wed Aug 25, 2004 19:46

I don’t believe so; in fact it states quite clearly that any private funding that colleges receive should not lead to a cut in financial support by the exchequer. It also very firmly states that the government has the pre-eminent role in role in deciding educational policy. If I thought this document was leading us down the path of a privatised 3rd level education system then I would dismiss it out of hand. However, I have read it a couple of times now just to make sure I wasn’t applying my own interpretation on it, and I can not see that this is the case.
As for taking funding from business, I have no problem taking money of those earning billions from the Irish economy and ploughing it direct into the education system. As I say earlier in my posts, this is already the case, the exchequer isn’t funding research, it is private donations that is.