Free fees an example of Bertie-nomics

THE sound of feet on the street is reassuring, particularly at a time when democracy is blowing in the wind like a fragile flower.

Last Wednesday, somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000 students took to the streets of Dublin. They were protesting against the possible return of college fees, a raising of the current registration fee, and a mooted reduction in student grants.

Their protest was rooted in Ruairi Quinn’s pre-election signed pledge that there would be no return of fees. It was a cynical election promise, but then, the Labour Party’s position on third level fees over the past 15 years is soaked in cynicism.

While the students were perfectly correct to protest over being taken for a ride, unfortunately, they are on a sticky wicket when it comes to the substance of their case.

Quinn, since he became Minister for Education, has had to face up to a crisis in third level funding. Where should the money come from? The ruling troika wants more contribution from the students. A series of reports on the sector over the last few years have also indicated that students must cough up. Why, for instance, should those who don’t make it to college stump up through their taxes for students to enjoy much better life prospects?

On the other hand, many in Quinn’s party see free fees as a core party principle. If that is an accurate reflection of sentiment in the party, then Labour has abandoned any aspiration to left wing values.

The party is proud of its role in the introduction of the free frees regime. College fees were abandoned in 1996 by then minister for education Niamh Bhreathnach. The stated motivation for doing so was to open up access to third level to those who traditionally didn’t make it to college. The Labour Party claimed that free fees would encourage kids from lower socio-economic backgrounds that college was for them.

According to a departmental paper proposing the policy in 1995: “These decisions are a major step forward in the promotion of equality. They remove important financial and psychological barriers to participation at third level.”

Some saw the whole thing as a deeply cynical exercise. By 1995, the Labour party knew it was heading for an electoral hiding as punishment for going into government with Fianna Fáil. In an attempt to stave off the worst of it, free fees were handed out to its liberal, middle class constituency as a goodie.

It was a great example of Bertie-nomics, before the great man himself even got into his stride. Shape national policy by targeting a constituency with goodies in exchange for votes; dress it up as striving for equality, and off you go with your paw out for a few first preferences.

If one were to give the Labour Party the benefit of the doubt, and accept its bone fides on the matter, then the free fees policy has been an abject failure. It has done nothing to tackle education inequality.

The only comprehensive study into the free fees regime was carried out by UCD academic Kevin Denning, published in May 2010. His study was entitled What Did Abolishing University Fees In Ireland Do?

Denning’s conclusions were as follows.

“The results are clear and striking: The socio-economic gradient (SES) with regard to attending university can essentially be explained by differential performance at secondary school level.

“In Ireland, the abolition of fees did not change the effect of SES on university entrance which was effectively zero before and after the reform once one controls for exam performance. The only obvious effect of the policy was to provide a windfall gain to middle-class parents who no longer had to pay fees,” he reported.

So much for promoting equality. Denning also pointed out that, if anything, the move further loaded the dice in favour of the better off.

“Prior to the reform many low-income students did not pay fees because they received a means tested grant covering both tuition costs and a contribution to their living expenses. In effect, the reform withdrew the one advantage that low-income students had relative to high-income students.”

Naturally, many in Labour refuse to accept these results, pointing to more scientific research, such as asking a taxi driver. A few years ago, when the issue came up for discussion on Marian Finucane’s radio programme, Bhreathnach mentioned a taxi driver who had recently thanked her for introducing free fees as it allowed him put three offspring through college. Unfortunately, the taxi driver wasn’t on the programme himself to convey his gratitude publicly.

So if we accept those academic results, then the policy of free fees have been a complete failure. Is that reason enough to re-introduce fees?

Not necessarily. We live in straitened times. Younger people have been disproportionately affected by the recession. Obtaining college education is more important than ever before. And, there is also a case that having handed out the goodie — irrespective of the cynicism in which it was wrapped — you can’t demand it back at a time like this.

As against that, about 40% of students don’t pay anything at the moment, on the basis of their parents’ income. They wouldn’t be affected by any increase in fees. Are we to take it that the families of those who would be eligible to cough up would really forego a college education?

The whole issue of fairness must also come into the equation. Four in 10 school-leavers don’t attend college. Should they fork out that others may enjoy better life prospects? Should the teenager working in a fast food restaurant underwrite the law student so that the latter may enjoy much better life prospects?

What about the man who collects the bins outside the home of a hospital consultant? He is contributing through his taxes to the homeowner’s daughter studies in medicine, while she or her family make no extra contribution. If the home is in south Dublin, or parts of Cork or Limerick, the daughter most likely attended a fee-paying secondary school, the demand for which blossomed since the introduction of free fees. How fair is any of that?

If equality in education is really the goal of the Labour Party then it would do much better to concentrate on funding second level, and particularly, primary level and pre-school. That is where the great divide opens up. The priority at third level must be ensuring that the level of maintenance grants are not sacrificed on the altar of free fees.

On Thursday, Labour TD Aodhán Ó Ríordáin called for the Cabinet to prioritise child poverty. He pointed to figures that suggest “approximately 90,000 children in this country are at risk of poverty”.

“This is completely unacceptable and I would call on the cabinet to make this a top priority on their agenda. It is absolutely crucial in these difficult times that we ensure the most vulnerable in this society are cared for,” he said.

Good luck to him with that. Everybody wants to eradicate child poverty, but there are precious few votes in it. Free third level is a different matter. From the cabinet table down, that’s a core Labour Party principle.