More Graduates = Higher GDP?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

beeno67

But isn't it true about the value of education in general. I spent 14 years learning Irish & 5 learning French. I can speak neither. I studied Chemistry, physics & Maths at honours level for 5 years but have don't have a clue about any of it now.

My University education has stood me in far greater sted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

From my experience, a graduate degree needs some level of involvement beyond turning up to the lectures at college. Doing an OU degree, this was financed directly from my own pocket, hence I was strongly motivated to make full and complete use of the resources and texts that were part of the course.
Perhaps at the very least, the link between future graduate earnings to final results and that the "free" fees will eventually be paid back during the graduate's working life need to be emphasised during the initial orientation period.

beeno67

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

?

RichardAnd

beeno67 wrote: »

?

He was correcting your spelling mistake.

professore

A lot of kids are sent to college here by their parents for no other reason than to secure bragging rights about their little Johnny or Mary off at Uni. There is often little or no consideration given to what little Johnny or Mary actually want to do with themselves. In cases like this a college education is a waste of time and money.

I would also argue that the much vaunted degree does not significantly increase your earning potential in many cases, especially if you were one of the kids referred to above.

beeno67

RichardAnd wrote: »

He was correcting your spelling mistake.

I know that. I didn't go back and check my spelling. Hardly worth commenting on. If we mentioned everyone's spelling mistakes (including Permabear's) we would be here all night.

Actually why not. Let's spot Permabear's deliberate mistake when commenting about basic literacy
"many third-level lecture cite basic literacy..."

as far as i can see now with the internship scheme that the more graduates we have the more money the state will pay out to companies that hire them

LOL

Chuck Stone

Introduce fees. Slash state funding for Universities and redirect to primary schools.

A lot of what's offered in Uni's is just hobby degrees anyway and are practically useless in the real economy.

z0oT

I think it largely depends on the area which those graduates graduate in. It's fair to say that if you've a degree in Celtic Civilisation and Greek & Roman Civilisation you're not actually going to be in a position to command high earnings and thus actively contribute to the economy. However if your area is something such as Engineering or IT, then you should be able to carve quite a decent path for yourself once you graduate, and thus be a valuable contribution to the economy.

Then assuming you've that, the more important issue is graduate quality. You'll see those that scrape through each year but have a pretty poor quality degree to show for it. I could point the finger at some of those that did Engineering with myself but are working minimum wage jobs now. And you don't have to look far to see a huge amount of those who spend their entire college education partying at night and nursing a hangover the following morning, who get through each year on a few days cramming at the very end. What contribution has their education been to the state?

Anyway, I would say more high quality graduates in marketable areas would more than likely correlate with a higher GDP, but just more graduates, not specifying what they actually graduate in, or the standard of their degree won't really mean that a so-called "smart economy" is the end result.

All that being said, I think it's worth pointing out that whilst our education system is not without a large list of flaws, our Universities do quite well internationally, with UCC, Trinity and UCD in the top 200. For a small country such as ourselves that's quite a good achievement.

Shelga

I believe people should be encouraged into further education, but only if they have an aptitude for it. I'm not sure where I stand on the fees issue, but I certainly don't think the state should pay for courses in Celtic Studies and Philosophy.

Certainly, graduates do not in general possess a skill set that warrants significantly higher pay than someone who did not attend university. I include myself in that.

VivGrise

We are a country with very little natural resources, albeit agriculture, and we can't even rely on that. The simple fact is that we need a highly educated workforce to attract foreign investment, and for them to create jobs. We don't have much else.

I would propose a system where fees are paid, as long as the student attends a minimum number of classes each week. They run a system in some ITs where you lose a certain amount of your grant if you miss so many classes.

Over time I'm sure that the greater number of graduates would lead to higher GDP, just not anytime soon. In theory they would be paying higher tax, so eventually that would all add up as well as the foreign investment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rubik.

The average net public return across OECD countries from providing a male student with a university education, after factoring in all the direct and indirect costs, is almost $52,000, nearly twice the average amount of money originally invested.

The gross earnings premium over the lifetime of an Irish person with a university degree is $230,823 for a male and $178,118 for a female. They are also less vunerable to unemployment.

“As we emerge from the global economic crisis, demand for university education will be higher than ever,” OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said. “To the extent that institutions are able to respond, investments in human capital will contribute to recovery.”


http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1017843.shtml

ardmacha

While some degrees clearly directly provide for the needs of the economy, as the thread on skills shortages showed, these are often not the most popular.
But other education can enhance people's ability to reason and so can be of value to the economy.

The critical thing is to have education proper to the level it purports to be at, rather than the modern tendency towards unchallenging courses that make people feel good, but don't provide any real education.

So literacy and numeracy should be taught at school, not in the first year of third level. Likewise third level should be academic and challenging, not just a way of keeping young people off the dole for 3 years and that costs money.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

z0oT

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes agreed. There would be war. Chalk it down to one of many failings of the current political system. No doing the policitally unpopular right thing. Secure as many votes as you can regardless of the consequences. Our minimum wage and dole are prime examples.

Now, ignoring the fact that any thinking along adressing said issue is a non-starter, if that the state was to go down this road, how it would actually tackle this problem is an interesting conundrum.

The abolition of completely "whishy-washy" 3rd level programmes, re-introduction of full fees (this would weed out the time wasters), tailoring of the Leaving Cert. more to suit the very professions that stimulate economic growth would perhaps be things to consider, but ultimately it's a hard problem to tackle. It would more than likely need to have the current secondary and primary systems turned on their heads entirely.

Sand

Whatever about the value of 3rd level education, does Irelands investment in education make sense with regard to the third level graduates who are forced to emigrate to find a job?

The spending on 3rd level education is often justified by the taxes levied on the graduates in later life. But if those taxes are being paid in the UK or Australia then its a free economic boost from the Irish taxpayer to the economy of those countries.

OMD

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Do 2 out of 3 go to third level?

Godge

Interesting debate, lots of interesting points.

One of the questions you have to ask is - what is education for?

Is it for economic growth? Is it a learning experience for teenagers? Is it for knowledge itself? Is it for a good time? All of the above?

I think that we do need to reflect on what we are producing graduates for? There is value and worth in producing graduates in Ancient Irish or in History but they should be people of top intellectual quality who go on to add to our society's totality of knowledge.

On the other hand, what is the point of Arts in Maynooth? From what I have seen of those who go there, it is party time for those who can't get into Trinners or UCD. Far better for them and for the country would be people qualfied in IT or Engineering or Business with Languages from an Institute of Technology.

Rubik.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If that were case then the difference in pay levels between those who have degrees and those who don't would be decreasing, but it isn't - it's increasing.

ardmacha

A bit of data doesn't do any harm.

From OECD
As far as I can see Type A courses are more the traditional degree and Type B more like the more vocational IT courses.

fly_agaric

Godge wrote: »

Interesting debate, lots of interesting points.

One of the questions you have to ask is - what is education for?

Is it for economic growth? Is it a learning experience for teenagers? Is it for knowledge itself? Is it for a good time? All of the above?

I think that we do need to reflect on what we are producing graduates for? There is value and worth in producing graduates in Ancient Irish or in History but they should be people of top intellectual quality who go on to add to our society's totality of knowledge.

Yes, was thinking this myself reading the initial post. I dislike relegation of humans and what they do to inputs to an economy, even if it's really popular now. Setting increasing the efficiency of the economy as a goal to which all aspects of human life are tributary twists discussion of everything.

Our education system doesn't seem to be doing as well as it should and that is a bad thing imo whether it has anything to do with our "gdp growth" or not.

However, in future there will be less and less jobs in their field for any graduates (other than the cream of the crop) imo - even if they are compelled to study something that is practical and currently in demand.

Does that mean that we should eventually do away with state-subsidised education beyond 2nd level for most of the population (other than that reserved for the minority smart enough to serve as the technocrats that will keep our automated societies ticking over). The arguments to efficiency would suggest that's what should happen. Arguments to efficiency would also suggest that even allowing a very clever and hard-working person to study something like Ancient Irish (let alone paying for them to do so) is a complete waste of resources!

Nijmegen

Our education system funding doubled yet our OECD PISA rankings dropped from 5th to 17th place and the number of teachers qualified to teach their subjects at second level dropped (particularly in key math and science areas.)

Seems like a lot of poor management to me, with poorer outcomes.

I think a more educated population is only ever a good thing for the economic and societal wellbeing of a country. One has to wonder though if the Irish education system isn't letting down more students than are letting it down.

graduate

Our education system funding doubled

Education was poorly funded in the past, and needed more. But this is no way excuses the failure to maintain standards by at least ensuring that people were qualified. But it reflects the anti education nature of the Aherne regime, which did believe in the knowledge economy but thought that everyone should become estate agents.

However this thread is largely about third level. In the boom, from 2000 to 2007 Ireland managed to reduce the real spending per student in third level. Spending was increased somewhat, but student numbers increased faster. So we had a 6% decline in real spending per student in a period when the EU had an average increase of 17%. Since then of course we've greatly reduced spending per student! An EU study found Ireland to be at the top of third level productivity, decent outcomes at reasonable cost, but the decency of the outcomes cannot indefinitely survive inputs below international levels.

Nijmegen

graduate wrote: »

Education was poorly funded in the past, and needed more. But this is no way excuses the failure to maintain standards by at least ensuring that people were qualified. But it reflects the anti education nature of the Aherne regime, which did believe in the knowledge economy but thought that everyone should become estate agents.

However this thread is largely about third level. In the boom, from 2000 to 2007 Ireland managed to reduce the real spending per student in third level. Spending was increased somewhat, but student numbers increased faster. So we had a 6% decline in real spending per student in a period when the EU had an average increase of 17%. Since then of course we've greatly reduced spending per student! An EU study found Ireland to be at the top of third level productivity, decent outcomes at reasonable cost, but the decency of the outcomes cannot indefinitely survive inputs below international levels.

We spend just a smidge shy the amount per head on education as does Finland, alternate number 1 or 2 on the world rankings.

I wonder why. (First person to mention the 20% pay premium in Ireland despite 3% lower consumer price index in Finland gets a prize.)

ardmacha

We spend just a smidge shy the amount per head on education as does Finland, alternate number 1 or 2 on the world rankings.

Spending on education is driven by the relatively large proportion of people in younger age groups in Ireland and the high proportion of these who stay in education. Because of these larger numbers spending per student is lower than OECD or EU averages, as graduate said.

As always though, posters completely ignore these facts and go straight to a rant about pay. This says a lot about this board and about public policy in Ireland generally, there is a complete unwillingness to base discussion on the service level provided and the resources needed to achieve that service level.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nijmegen

ardmacha wrote: »

Spending on education is driven by the relatively large proportion of people in younger age groups in Ireland and the high proportion of these who stay in education. Because of these larger numbers spending per student is lower than OECD or EU averages, as graduate said.

As always though, posters completely ignore these facts and go straight to a rant about pay. This says a lot about this board and about public policy in Ireland generally, there is a complete unwillingness to base discussion on the service level provided and the resources needed to achieve that service level.

Re-read my post ardmacha, I said per head Ireland spends just about the same amount as Finland.

At primary and post primary levels we spend more per student than Finland per pupil - the PISA rankings are taken at age 15. We spend $7,791 per head versus their $7,216 and an OECD average of $7,401

At third level they spend a bit more but we beat the OECD average: $12,631 in Ireland, $13,566 in Finland and $12,471 the OECD average.

So, we spend more per head than Finland at primary and post primary and they've maintained number 1/2 spot in PISA and we've dropped from 5th to 17th.

Fascinating.

Meanwhile, Irish teachers earn an average premium of 20% on their Finnish counterparts, all of whom have a masters degree versus 15% of Irish educators with the same.

An Irish primary school teacher with 15 years experience earns 45% more than their Finnish counterpart. In secondary school the same experience earns a 23% difference.

The biggest cost in education, quite rightly, are the educators. In Ireland ours earn a big premium on their Finnish counterparts yet we get totally substandard results. Even accounting for a less diverse population, for us to go backwards 12 places in the world rankings while spending more per pupil than the top dog is clear indication to my simple business mind of a failure.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ardmacha

This post had been deleted.

If funding per student is less than other places and reducing, then it may indeed be a problem, even if it is those vile public servants who are saying this.

Before we entertain the standard claim that our educational problems can be solved by increasing spending (even though we increased spending madly all through the 2000s, while outcomes only grew worse)

The point is that spending did not increase madly, education had lower increases than other public spends and there were more students to spend it on. As graduate pointed out above real spending per student in third level actually dropped in the boom.

Permabear wrote:

At a primary school near where I live in Ireland, a teacher parks her BMW beside the dilapidated prefab in which her students sit, seemingly oblivious to the irony. I should take a photo sometime and post it — because it's a perfect illustration of the ludicrous disparity between spending on educators' wages and spending on other resources.

Permabear, you seem to have a real chip on your shoulder about teachers. You started this thread with a reasonable point, can the public fund more or less free third level education for an unlimited proportion of students? Some useful debate followed, but now you are talking about primary school teachers' cars, which has nothing in particular to do with your own thread.

Nijmegen wrote:

Re-read my post ardmacha, I said per head Ireland spends just about the same amount as Finland.

I think you meant spent (past tense) as the OECD figures relate to re-cut expenditure. I'd hazard a guess that cuts have been more here than in Finland.

The Finnish system has much to recommend it and I am not supporting low standards in any way, the decline in scores requires national action. However the overall pay cost in Finland is the same, Finnish teachers have less contact hours, smaller classes, more training etc which costs money too. If you are proposing as move to a Finnish system then that is one thing. If you are proposing cutting Irish salaries, while keeping class sizes the same etc then you are not proposing the Finnish system.

At third level they spend a bit more but we beat the OECD average: $12,631 in Ireland, $13,566 in Finland and $12,471 the OECD average.

This is more relevant to this thread. At the height of the boom we reached OECD averages, at a time when our GNP was significantly higher than the OECD average. Reaching the OECD average was not "mad" spending. But of course there have been substantial cuts since then, so I'd say we are well shy of the OECD average at present.

Nijmegen

The figures come by way of "OECD, Education At A Glance 2010"; and as far as I am aware teacher pay, barring the pension levy towards their pension pot, has not been decreased.

What I am proposing is that if we wanted to have all our classes under 25 pupils, we could achieve it for a lot less by paying Finnish rates to our teachers than Irish ones.

Irish school teachers have made quite the argument that their pay = educational success. The fact is that they earn a significant premium on their Finnish counterparts whilst delivering a significantly poorer service. This, to me, says that if we shaved off that 20% premium and re-invested it into teacher training, more teachers, etc, we would achieve higher outcomes.

Remember, we spend more per student than Finland up to the age of the PISA tests, 15, and we fare 15 places behind them, a massive drop in education standards.

By your 'cuts have been deep logic' we should have been in the top 5 and now, with cuts, be heading back towards place 17.

I wonder where the heck we will end up now with the cuts...? Given that the majority of the cost of educating children, teachers, is fixed and untouchable.

If we cut teacher pay to Finnish levels would our teachers become 20% stupider?

#15

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Most countries in the OECD spend between 70 and 80 percent of the education budget on wages.

Your point about the BMW is a red herring and only serves to highlight your ever-increasing bitterness towards teachers any unionised workers or anyone not meeting the libertarian ideal.

#15

This, to me, says that if we shaved off that 20% premium and re-invested it into teacher training, more teachers, etc, we would achieve higher outcomes.

Educational outcomes are mostly dependent on the child's socio-economic background.

I think there is some merit in your idea of diverting more funds into better training, more resources, etc., but that alone would not be enough.
The school environment can do a lot of things, but it cannot compensate for what happens (or perhaps, what doesn't happen) in the home.

The fact is that they earn a significant premium on their Finnish counterparts whilst delivering a significantly poorer service.

Irish teachers spend significantly more time teaching than Finnish teachers do. Finnish teachers, IIRC, are at the bottom of the chart and Irish teachers are at, or close to, the top.
They also have smaller classes than Irish teachers.

I don't entirely disagree with all your points but if the comparison is to be complete, then working time and workload need to be included too.

As an aside, it is interesting that the most successful education system doesn't start formal literacy lessons until the children are 7 years old, and that they spend the least amount of time in school.

Godge

Nijmegen wrote: »

The figures come by way of "OECD, Education At A Glance 2010"; and as far as I am aware teacher pay, barring the pension levy towards their pension pot, has not been decreased.

What I am proposing is that if we wanted to have all our classes under 25 pupils, we could achieve it for a lot less by paying Finnish rates to our teachers than Irish ones.

Irish school teachers have made quite the argument that their pay = educational success. The fact is that they earn a significant premium on their Finnish counterparts whilst delivering a significantly poorer service. This, to me, says that if we shaved off that 20% premium and re-invested it into teacher training, more teachers, etc, we would achieve higher outcomes.

Remember, we spend more per student than Finland up to the age of the PISA tests, 15, and we fare 15 places behind them, a massive drop in education standards.

By your 'cuts have been deep logic' we should have been in the top 5 and now, with cuts, be heading back towards place 17.

I wonder where the heck we will end up now with the cuts...? Given that the majority of the cost of educating children, teachers, is fixed and untouchable.

If we cut teacher pay to Finnish levels would our teachers become 20% stupider?

I am not someone who will defend teachers salaries but it is important that in discussions like this statistics used are accurate. The figures in OECD Edcuation at a Glance date from 2008. This is because the data is collected at a point in time and it takes up to 18 months for the OECD to collate and publish (efficient public body!!).

As a consequence the figures for Ireland do not include the salary cuts as of 1 January 2010 and the more recent cuts of 10% for new entrants effective from 1 January 2011. Thus for a teacher starting off today in Ireland, the salary they would receive is over 20% less than starting off in 2008 (net of pension levy).

ardmacha

The figures come by way of "OECD, Education At A Glance 2010"; and as far as I am aware teacher pay, barring the pension levy towards their pension pot, has not been decreased.

Does it help your credibility as a serious poster in the Irish Economy forum that you claim to be unaware that there were public sector pay cuts, in addition to the cuts known as the pension levy?

The figures come by way of "OECD, Education At A Glance 2010";

i.e. 2008 data. The repeated use of 2008 data with the use of the present tense is one of the most misleading strategies used to rant in this forum. This has been pointed out numerous times, but people still continue to do it.

Given that the majority of the cost of educating children, teachers, is fixed and untouchable.

It was reduced by 14%, a non-trivial sum.

This, to me, says that if we shaved off that 20% premium and re-invested it into teacher training, more teachers, etc, we would achieve higher outcomes.

Are you proposing to do this? Remember if you cut pay by 20% and class sizes by 10% then you have exactly the same expenditure since half of the pay cut would be PAYE, pension levy etc. Are you concerned with cutting expenditure or raising standards?

OMD

#15 wrote: »

.

I don't entirely disagree with all your points but if the comparison is to be complete, then working time and workload need to be included too.

.

Teachers always bring up this point which I simply don't get. If Irish teachers are spending more time with the students, and the students despite this extra time are doing worse, then why the hell should the teachers get paid more?

OMD

OMD wrote: »

Teachers always bring up this point which I simply don't get. If Irish teachers are spending more time with the students, and the students despite this extra time are doing worse, then why the hell should the teachers get paid more?

Just about to ask that.

#15 wrote:

Irish teachers spend significantly more time teaching than Finnish teachers do. Finnish teachers, IIRC, are at the bottom of the chart and Irish teachers are at, or close to, the top.


I don't entirely disagree with all your points but if the comparison is to be complete, then working time and workload need to be included too.

This isn't exactly helping your case. What exactly are irish teachers doing if we're way down on the list compared to the Finnish ones and they spend far less time teaching? Are you highlighting their inefficiencies for us?

ardmacha

Teachers always bring up this point which I simply don't get. If Irish teachers are spending more time with the students, and the students despite this extra time are doing worse, then why the hell should the teachers get paid more?

Do we know how much time is spent with students in Finland or other places.? You may have a point, but more detail is needed, these things are not one sentence issues.

OMD

ardmacha wrote: »

i.e. 2008 data. The repeated use of 2008 data with the use of the present tense is one of the most misleading strategies used to rant in this forum. This has been pointed out numerous times, but people still continue to do it.
?

From 2010 in Finland:
According to official figures, gross average monthly salary in pre-university education is 2,700 euros, as the net salary reaches somewhere between 2000-2200 euros, depending on the tax exemptions that apply. In the past ten years, teachers’ salaries increased by approximately 40%, which means an average of 3.5% per year.
Perhaps the salary seems high, but it must be said that the average wage in Finland is 3,050 euros and a private business employee earns 3,200 euros monthly. In comparison, a dentist earns 4,600 euros gross per month, an accountant earns 4,200 euros, an engineer earns 3,700 euros, a programmer earns 3,600, a firefighter earns 2,400 euros and a mailman or a carpenter earns 2,500 euros.


So average secondary teacher in Finland in 2010 earns about €2700 a month and takes home €2100 a month after tax and earns 88% of average wage.
In Ireland the average secondary teacher starts on €2575 and takes home about €2100. After 10 years earns €3634 (2010 figures) and will take home €2700 a month after tax and pension levies.

ardmacha

ardmacha wrote: »

Do we know how much time is spent with students in Finland or other places.? You may have a point, but more detail is needed, these things are not one sentence issues.

Going from education at a glance, outdated or not:

Net teaching time in hours:
Primary education
Finland 677
Ireland 915

Lower Secondary
Finland 592
Ireland 735

Then "compensation for all staff" as a % of education expenditure was:
Finland: 67
Ireland: 91
I'm assuming that's about salaries & other benefits; the figures on the actual salaries paid to the teachers of both countries had roughly that differential as well

OMD

ardmacha wrote: »

Do we know how much time is spent with students in Finland or other places.? You may have a point, but more detail is needed, these things are not one sentence issues.

#15 said "Irish teachers spend significantly more time teaching than Finnish teachers do"

Nijmegen

A pay cut for new entrant teachers is not much good given that we're not recruiting very many, and the majority of teachers remain on the higher salaries. A cut to existing teacher pay doesn't bring them down 20%, or up to 45% in some examples. And no, I don't accept that the pension levy is a pay cut. Gross pay and the pension they get at the end is the same. It's a rebate on a beautiful pension pot.

Teachers have been cute hoors at linking educational performance and their pay. They only began bleating about prefabs in a major way when their pay was on the table. They're an overpaid and under worked section of the workforce, and whats more they claim big hourly rates for giving additional tuition within school time, to supervise and mark exams, etc. I believe that the money they cream off the top is money that is not invested into a better education system, and I've not seen any link in increased teacher pay and increased academic performance.

I believe, for the record, that there is more systemic change required than simply altering teacher pay to get to a world class education system (Number 17, beaten by Estonia and Poland, is not world class in my opinion.)

It is not the fault of individual Irish teachers that we rank so lowly. But who have been the biggest opponents to change in our method of examining students, by continuous assessment versus 100% major exams, for example? Teacher unions.

They are, like most unions, anti-change, anti-modernisation and pro-pay increases in the main.

Successive idiot politicians, backwards civil servants and uncompromising teacher unions are to blame for our lack of educational attainment compared to entirely comparable countries like Finland and Canada.

That the Finns manage to reach the number 2 spot whilst maintaining a similar spend profile to number 17 Ireland (even if we're looking at 2008 numbers) shows a complete cock up of education in this country.

kuntboy

Permabear- youve been saying this for years it's never going to change.

Perhaps workshops could be set up by concerned members of the public to encourage smart students to develop their technical skills- things like this for example: www.robots.ie

Even if someone has a qualification and a technical job they could still be doing irrelevant bureaucracy or duplicate nonsense. We need technical entrepreneurs.

The US/Silicon valley is full of armies of nerds (no offense) who teach themselves instead of waiting for the system to do it for them. 2nd generation and highly driven immigrant Asian students whose parents sacrificed everything to get them there and Indian kids who study 12 hours a day are throughout US technical academia and R&D. These are the people who found tech companies. They should be our inspiration.

#15

OMD wrote: »

Teachers always bring up this point which I simply don't get. If Irish teachers are spending more time with the students, and the students despite this extra time are doing worse, then why the hell should the teachers get paid more?

That was not my argument. My argument is that the comparison should include all factors.

But it is interesting that you do not believe working hours should not matter when it comes to calculating salary.

This isn't exactly helping your case. What exactly are irish teachers doing if we're way down on the list compared to the Finnish ones and they spend far less time teaching? Are you highlighting their inefficiencies for us?

No

(i) If we are comparing to OECD stats, let us compare across the board, and not cherrypick just the stats that suit a particular view.

(ii) if you had any idea of all the factors that contribute to educational outcomes you wouldn't reduce it to such a simple-minded argument. High or low salaries in themselves do not contribute much, if anything, to educational outcomes.

Finland proves the point - they spend the lowest amount of time teaching in the OECD. If we are to use Finland as a model, we would spend as much time roaring about social issues, shortening the school year and lowering class sizes as we would about pay.

All those factors matter as much as, or more, than pay. The link between educational outcomes and salary is mostly irrelevant, whether it is teacher unions or anyone else making the claim.

Salaries that are too high or too low can attract the wrong people into the job.
Salaries may be unsustainable given the PS bill.
Fine - both of those are reasonable points to start a discussion and there will always be people arguing the toss on both sides.

But, simplistic links between pay and outcomes that have been made on this thread are unhelpful for two reasons
- they won't result in proper pay levels (either workers or the taxpayer stand to lose out)
- and they contribute absolutely nothing to actually increasing educational outcomes, because it takes the focus away from factors that actually do impact on outcomes.

#15

Also, people should note that a more recent OECD report on literacy saw Ireland jump up to 8th in the rankings. Are people deliberately ignoring this or just not aware of it?

#15

#15 wrote: »

Also, people should note that a more recent OECD report on literacy saw Ireland jump up to 8th in the rankings. Are people deliberately ignoring this or just not aware of it?

On digital literacy?


http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/students-above-oecd-average-for-digital-literacy-159339.html

That's lovely and all, but when "close to 25 per cent of Irish 15-year-olds were “functionally illiterate” ", you'll forgive me if I don't break out in celebration??
And meanwhile we're suffering massive grade inflation and dropping in numeracy too?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0603/1224298323604.html

OMD

#15 wrote: »

Also, people should note that a more recent OECD report on literacy saw Ireland jump up to 8th in the rankings. Are people deliberately ignoring this or just not aware of it?

Perhaps you should link that most recent report?

ardmacha

And no, I don't accept that the pension levy is a pay cut. Gross pay and the pension they get at the end is the same. It's a rebate on a beautiful pension pot.

This is semantics. Government expenditure is reduced, employee remuneration is reduced. Whether you call it a pension levy or paycut it is the same thing, as the Minister of Finance has said. It is accounting trickery.

Teachers have been cute hoors at linking educational performance and their pay.

Public servants with some awareness of their performance is not a bad thing. Much preferable to the vast bureaucracy that has no concept of outcomes or performance. When outcomes decline there can then be fair comment on them.

I believe, for the record, that there is more systemic change required than simply altering teacher pay to get to a world class education system

You might. But all the talk here, and generally, is about pay, little about other things.

Successive idiot politicians, backwards civil servants and uncompromising teacher unions are to blame for our lack of educational attainment compared to entirely comparable countries like Finland and Canada.

Unions may sometimes play a negative role. But the first requirement is clarity of policy and there has never been any sign of this in the last decade. You have put forward a sensible proposition and ask then talk to unions. Mind you I think the present Minister is well ahead of the like of Mary Coughlan who had the role before.

OMD

#15 wrote: »

Also, people should note that a more recent OECD report on literacy saw Ireland jump up to 8th in the rankings. Are people deliberately ignoring this or just not aware of it?

A little help if you need it. This is from the secretary general of the Dept of Education 6 months ago:


THE SECRETARY general of the Department of Education Brigid McManus said Ireland’s drop in OECD maths and literacy rankings was a “matter of serious concern” but questioned the findings of the international study, an Oireachtas committee heard.
The Oireachtas Committee on Education met department officials yesterday to discuss results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa).
It showed a sharp fall in Ireland’s OECD maths and literacy ranking. On reading levels among 15-year-olds, Ireland slipped from fifth place in 2000 to 17th place, while in maths Ireland fell from 16th to 26th.
Ms McManus said the findings were “very disappointing” and the literacy results were a “huge shock”. The findings “have been and continue to be treated as a matter of serious concern by the department”.