As the debate around the funding of third level education continues, Roisin Guyett-Nicholson, looks at the different options outlined in the Cassell report.
Minister for Education Jan O’Sullivan recently declined to respond to the draft details of the Cassell’s report which was formed in early 2015 to examine future methods of funding for third level. The expert group, led by former Trade Union leader Peter Cassell, is expected to release its findings this month.
With fees for third level increasing yearly and other associated costs such as accommodation and living expenses also rising, funding for third level has come under pressure. Combined with this, Ireland has seen huge increases in the number of students attending third level.
What this means is that an overhaul of third level funding is desperately needed. It is simply unfeasible to expect the system to continue the way it is with little to no intervention. The question is however, to what degree do we reform?
The details in the draft of the Cassell’s report examine three different scenarios. First, the state could move towards a third level model like that in Scandinavia or Scotland. Under these systems, tuition is largely free for students which is covered by state investment. Among European states, these have the highest level of investment per student. In applying it to the Irish case, the state would then have to provide €1.5 billion by 2030, something that the report notes is unlikely.
The second option would see the current model continue with students paying €3,000 for the contribution fee. Given the current pressure that students are under this does not seem to be particularly feasible. As well as that, this system would not be able to take the pressure of increased numbers away. The report estimates that by 2030 the state would have to invest €1.1 billion to make up the shortfall.
The third option and the one highlighted by the report is a combination of income-contingent loans for students and employer investment. It proposes that this could raise up to €1 billion towards third level funding. While this could see a charge of €4,000 for students, the report indicates that it would allow for a continued high level of investment in third level education, while costing the state significantly less than the other options.
The fee of €4,000 is proposed to be an annual one but could be repayable over an approximately 15 year period. Essentially once students begin to earn, they begin to pay back the investment in their education. If the amount of students continues to grow as is predicted, this option seems the strongest option to finance the influx.
The probability of income-contingent loans is also something that has been considered by a number of political parties. Last year, Ógra Fianna Fáil proposed a system of student loans that it specified would be “free at point of access.” Similar to the Cassell’s report they suggested an annual fee that would eventually be repaid to students.
However, key to the option described in the report is the input of employers. The idea is simple: that employers invest in their future employees. However, the exact provision and distribution of any investment could be questionable. What would be of vital importance to this proposal would be which employers or businesses will provide funds and to what extent would they have a say in how their investment is managed. For example a large law firm would not expect their funds to go to Science or STEM courses. If any employer is going to provide the projected funds then they would expect them to go to courses that will produce graduates for that field.
This could potentially throw doubt on the funding of courses that do not have a clear career path after graduation, such as Arts or general Science courses. Ultimately this would come down to how the employer contribution is managed.
As the possibility of student loans in Ireland becomes more likely, the way we view education may change. If we’re relying on investment from prospective employers, will that dictate students’ course choices?
By allowing big employers the opportunity to mould their future employees, it is possible that we could see significant investment in particular courses while other degrees are overshadowed.
This is an issue that a number of political parties will be focusing on and few have been willing to commit to proposals similar to that suggested by the report. With a general election expected to be held by the end of February, the timing of the release of the report is somewhat unlucky. Though the Minister claimed that she will comment on the findings of the report once they are finalised, that is likely to be only a number of weeks before the election. As such it is difficult to see how any party will make a clear commitment to the employer contribution and income-contingent loan system suggested by the report. Ultimately, it means that the future of higher education in Ireland will remain in limbo until well after the election.
Advertisements