Government’s grand plan for our future turns to dust in the schools

I MET a man recently who has spent most of his career working on major capital projects. He’s been involved in building bridges, motorways, third-level colleges and housing estates. And he’s involved on the financial side of things, so he knows a fair bit about money and how it should be spent.

We were chatting about the recession — it’s completely taken over even from the miserable weather as the main topic of conversation. I remarked that at least he was in a position where he could point to various bits and pieces of development and claim them as his legacy from the Celtic Tiger.

“There’s only going to be one legacy from the Celtic Tiger,” he told me, “and that’s a very large fleet of second-hand BMWs.”

He went on to explain that in his view, we’d build the bricks and mortar all right, but we had spent the entire period of the Celtic Tiger (assuming it’s over, of course) neglecting the investment in human capital. What did he mean?

“Here’s what I mean,” he said. “We’ve built motorways like the spokes on a bicycle wheel out of Dublin. And even though they’re not finished yet, their main function is to carry commuters to and from jobs in the city to their families who live further and further away. We’ve built huge housing estates and they are all owned by landlords renting them to people from Africa or eastern Europe. They’re either going to become ghettos, if the people living there can’t afford the rents, or deserts if they all go home. We’ve modernised all our universities and third-level schools with classy new buildings, but we made sure that first and second-level didn’t keep pace — so soon we’re going to have all these universities with not nearly enough students. We spend all our time talking about the environment, but we haven’t invested a red cent in building a mile of new railway anywhere in the country. Should I go on?”

No, I told him. Stop. It was all too depressing. After all, we all knew that the years of economic growth were going to slow down some day.

But the real legacy of the Celtic Tiger would be the National Development Plan (NDP), wouldn’t it? That’d be the thing that would set us up for the future. The NDP would be like the sheds that were built in the Bible during the seven years of plenty and filled to bursting point with grain to carry us through the seven years of want.

But the minute the years of plenty came to an end, the first thing they have begun to unpick is the National Development Plan. And oddly enough, it’s not the grandiose projects that are under threat, by and large, but the human capital side of the investment. Once again, bricks and mortar appear to be well protected — it’s people that seem not to matter.

You could give dozens of examples of that.

Virtually every aspect of the community we live in, and of the future we’d like to see for our children, is being determined right now by implementation of the NDP — or rather by the unpicking of the NDP, especially as it relates to future development.

For example, here’s one small exchange from last week’s Dáil debate on the NDP. Deputy Brian Hayes of Fine Gael was having a go at the Government about aspects of the plan, particularly as it relates to education.

He had previously been involved in a bit of a slagging match with Green party minister Eamon Ryan whom he has taken to referring to as ‘Archbishop Ryan’.

Minister Ryan, mind you, probably deserved a slagging, after a remarkable speech in which he said the present difficulties were all the fault of the people who had enjoyed the Celtic Tiger too much. All that shopping in New York, all those extra holidays — that was what had done the damage. You’d wonder whose world the minister lived in.

Anyway, Brian Hayes had to put up with a number of interruptions from Education Minister Batt O’Keeffe, as he said: “I am most disappointed that Archbishop Ryan did not stay in the chamber to hear about the commitment that was given under the National Development Plan that €252m would be spent on improving technology in our schools. Not one brass farthing has been spent in the past four years and we are at rock bottom of the EU league table when it comes to spending on technology. When will we get this money? When will the Minister for Education and Science produce his report on information and communications technology, about which he gave me a commitment two weeks ago? When will the report be produced and when will the money follow from it?

Deputy O’Keeffe: Today.

Deputy Hayes: Will the sum be €252 million?

Deputy O’Keeffe: We will have a look at that, too.

Deputy Hayes: I suspect we will have a look at that all right. The minister knows that the commitments in the national development plan are not worth the paper they are written on.

Deputy O’Keeffe: The deputy will know that they were all predicated on a growth rate of 4.5%.”

That was last Thursday, and the minister was right. The report on information technology in schools was indeed published the same day — in fact two of them were. There’s a nice shiny, photograph of the minister on the department’s website receiving the reports which deal with the impact of information and communications technology on teaching so far, and set out views on the strategic development needed.

What the reports make clear is that while a lot of progress has been made to date, especially in the provision and installation of hardware, the critical period lies ahead, As the authors (in this case the Schools Inspectorate) say themselves: “In post-primary schools, limited use is made of ICT (information and communications technology) for developing higher-order thinking skills in students, as well as creative skills, social skills, independent working skills and communication skills.”

THERE’S a lot more in that vein — much done, more to do, as the now worn-out political slogan would have it. There is certainly an urgent need to begin making that promised investment of €252 million contained in the NDP.

But in publishing these long-awaited reports, the minister had only a couple of sentences to say.

Here they are, in full: “I will be working with my department and all relevant parties to pursue the substantial agenda outlined in the reports. While we face significant challenges in implementing some of the recommendations made in these reports having regard to the current public finance position, I am committed to investing in this area as resources permit and I am anxious that we progress a number of key deliverables as soon as possible.”

What do you think, reading those sentences? Is this an area that matters — in all sorts of ways?

Can we be certain, reading that, that the Government’s commitment to this aspect of the NDP, along with so many other aspects that matter, is total?

Or should we, perhaps, avoid holding our breath?