The education system fails those we most need to help

PeakOutput

SO, DEAR READER, this is going to be the last occasion for me to assault you with my views on this page before it winds up for the summer; and indeed it is my last chance to do so as President of DCU. By the time we meet again in this space in the autumn, DCU will be under new (and, I predict, highly successful) leadership and I will have faded into the shadows.

For today, I am going to ask you to sit down and hold tight, maybe with a glass of water to hand should you need it, because I am going to express some strong opinions.

As a society, we are failing those we most need to help in the education field, and frankly we don’t seem to give a damn. Unless we change and change fast, we will rightly be branded a disgrace. We all share responsibility for this. So what am I so exercised about? Let me go back for a moment to the 1970s, when I was a fresh young student in one of Dublin’s universities. As I have pointed out before, we were the elite. The people in my class were lovely people, and many have remained friends, but I cannot for a moment pretend that we were representative of the wider population in Dublin and beyond. Most of our parents were professionals, or business people, or people who had inherited wealth.

Managing an elite system of higher education is a doddle, relatively speaking. The students are bright and articulate and have that easy self-confidence that comes with a comfortable upbringing. Even when one or two of them are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier they still look good and make you feel comfortable.

As time went by we became aware that we couldn’t go on like this. A higher education sector that perpetuates social privilege just won’t cut it in a modern society, and a country that wants to attract investment needs much larger numbers of skilled people and much fewer signs of socio-economic disadvantage. So what did we do?

We started to push participation targets in third level upwards, and we abolished tuition fees. Happy days, now everyone was going to be able to go to college and we would have a country of genuine equality of opportunity.

But what actually happened? Of course we know that participation in higher education grew rapidly, and now amounts to over 60 per cent of the age cohort, and in many ways it is a great achievement.

In particular, the new policies encouraged and helped the children of middle income families to go to college without creating the same extreme financial pressures that would have existed before. Perhaps even more than that, the children of professionals and managers got another encouragement, and for all intents and purposes 100 per cent of these are now in third level.

But the disadvantaged? No, they haven’t benefited in the same way. In fact, they haven’t benefited at all, because between 1998 and 2004 participation levels of those from a “non-manual” background (the lowest socio-economic grouping) actually fell by three percentage points.

Or if you look at it geographically, in the areas close to DCU like Finglas and Ballymun, higher education participation rates run somewhere between 5 and 7 per cent. In the most recent figures released by the Higher Education Authority, we can again see a decline in third level participation by those from non-manual, skilled manual and semi-skilled backgrounds.

This is where we need to hang our heads in shame. We know that inclusive higher education is a necessary ingredient of both economic success and an equitable society. But what do we do? We maintain so-called “free fees” so that we can focus our currently declining resources on the middle classes, while we neglect the disadvantaged.

Mind you, the universities have stepped up to the plate. Over 20 years ago DCU started the first (and still the largest) access programme, and the other universities later followed suit.

We fund these programmes from private resources, with very little support from the State. And important though these individual initiatives are, and grateful though I am personally for the many donors who support them generously, it is not enough.

As a country we have decided that protecting politicians from the wrath of middle class voters is more important than doing the right thing. We have decided to market “free fees” as a socially progressive thing, but it is nothing of the kind.

It is a transfer of resources from the poor to the wealthy. We are cutting off equal opportunities for the disadvantaged, and we seem to be totally at ease with this choice.

In the end, if we cannot accept that this is immoral, we should at least understand that it is unproductive: maintaining an educational under-class is never a good idea. We need to bring this to an end, and we need to do it fast.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2010/0518/1224270592225.html

thanks scofflaw

i think tht if we dont start listening to the people who know what they are talking about and have no reason to have an opinion either way our education system is going to go the way of the rest of our infrastructure

if free fees does not increase participation in third level from the poorest people in society then it really has no purpose at all accept to give the goverment a few brownie points with the general public

Taxipete29

This hardly means alot.

What % of school leavers from the group he talks about went into the construction industry straight from school?? How many got decent paying jobs in other sectors without the need for a college education??

It would be more relevant to see the figures for the last year or 2 when there was little promise of a job straight out of school rather than figures from during the Tiger years

Manach

I'd disagree with the OP article. Prior to the introduction of fees, it was possible for lower income students to enter college. The sector as it seems to be underfunded with colleges trying increasing outre methods of financing (graduation fees etc.).
A system of re-payable living/fee loans might be more advantageous than the current system.

Scofflaw

OP needs to offer an opinion rather than just repost someone else's content.

moderately,
Scofflaw

[EDIT]Re-opened for OP opinion.[/EDIT]

PeakOutput

edit; opinion added

dan_d

Hmmmm....I think this guy is missing the point a bit. From 1998-2004 numbers from lower income backgrounds fell....of course they did. Every young lad from a family with no background in further education hit 16 and got out of school fast because they could make a fortune by going into construction. And they then proceeded to spend their money on getting drunk every weekend on alcohol and frequently high on drugs, and buying souped up cars to drive too fast around the roads with
I see his point but that's probably not the best way to back it up.

djpbarry

dan_d wrote: »

Every young lad from a family with no background in further education hit 16 and got out of school fast because they could make a fortune by going into construction. And they then proceeded to spend their money on getting drunk every weekend on alcohol and frequently high on drugs, and buying souped up cars to drive too fast around the roads with

Wow. Generalise much?

Ste.phen

djpbarry wrote: »

Wow. Generalise much?

It's a bit of a generalisation alright, but apart from the drugs part, most people who left my school before the leaving cert ended up doing almost exactly that

djpbarry

Ste.phen wrote: »

It's a bit of a generalisation alright, but apart from the drugs part, most people who left my school before the leaving cert ended up doing almost exactly that

I'm not disputing that - it was much the same in my school. It's the 'Every young lad from a family with no background in further education' bit that I find particularly objectionable.

PeakOutput

dan_d wrote: »

Hmmmm....I think this guy is missing the point a bit. From 1998-2004 numbers from lower income backgrounds fell....of course they did. Every young lad from a family with no background in further education hit 16 and got out of school fast because they could make a fortune by going into construction. And they then proceeded to spend their money on getting drunk every weekend on alcohol and frequently high on drugs, and buying souped up cars to drive too fast around the roads with
I see his point but that's probably not the best way to back it up.

even if that is the reason which i dont believe for a second why is that the rest of the countries problem? why should we have a below par education system because of their decisions?

the facts are the the unis need more money, there is no exchequer money for them, fees need to be reintroduced and the grants system overhauled

this would help more people better than are being helped now

HavingCrack

To be fair this old debate as to why the working classes don't attend college as to the same as their middle and upper class counter parts misses a vital point. Basically for the majority (obviously it doesn't hold true for all) of people of lower socio economic class, third level education simply isn't on the agenda. They just don't consider it as an option for them. They'd much prefer to get out into the world and start working. For some people even completing the Leaving Cert is a huge achievement.

But to get back to the OP it doesn't matter how many schemes etc are put in place for a certain % of the population 3rd level education is never going to be a choice.

anymore

dan_d wrote: »

Hmmmm....I think this guy is missing the point a bit. From 1998-2004 numbers from lower income backgrounds fell....of course they did. Every young lad from a family with no background in further education hit 16 and got out of school fast because they could make a fortune by going into construction. And they then proceeded to spend their money on getting drunk every weekend on alcohol and frequently high on drugs, and buying souped up cars to drive too fast around the roads with
I see his point but that's probably not the best way to back it up.

Far from missing the point, you yourself are going in the opposite direction !
In fact the trend in the construction industry is that entrants to it now increasingly come after kids have completed their Leaving Certificate and this is so even for those doing apprenticeships. In the case of apprenticeships, further study and training, by way of block release is required before completing thier apprenticeship. Many on construction sites subsequently going to study at night at ITs to acquire Certificates/Diplomas in Contruction Studies and some will go on to get Degrees in Construction Disciplines.
So dont be too surprised if that plumber or mason or even sometimes labourer has a degree in his/her backpocket !

PeakOutput

HavingCrack wrote: »

But to get back to the OP it doesn't matter how many schemes etc are put in place for a certain % of the population 3rd level education is never going to be a choice.

so why continue with free fees when it dosnt increase participation and it adversely affects the education provided

HavingCrack

PeakOutput wrote: »

so why continue with free fees when it dosnt increase participation and it adversely affects the education provided

I suppose having some form of means testing to qualify for free fees while those who can afford them should have to pay. However, I think there should be more academic scholarships available-eg. if you reach a certain number of points in your leaving cert or you achive 'x' grade in your college exams you have your fees for the next year paid for? Something alogn those lines would help both those who would struggle to pay the fees while also giving those from better off backrounds an incentive to work harder than many are at the mintue rather than coasting along.