Analysis: When it comes to education we aspire to the best, but the OECD report is asking who will pay for it, writes Seán Flynn, Education Editor
The OECD review is a very impressive document. In cold, forensic detail, it sets out the Government's vision of a third-level sector as the driving force of the new "Knowledge Society".
It then proceeds to detail the less glamorous reality of life in our under-funded universities and institutes of technology. It reports how the third-level sector struggles to cope with under-funding; how even those in the key area of scientific research seem uncertain about future investment and how the State's colleges are, somehow, performing well - without the funding levels other competitor states take for granted.
There is nothing particularly new or eye-catching in the report. Most of its proposals have already been floated by various interest groups and academic studies. But the report benefits because of its measured and polite tone. After reading it, most of its 52 recommendations have a compelling logic.
It cuts a swathe through the notion that our third-level system is at the cutting edge. While everyone seems to agree the sector is critical for our future economic and social progress, there is a lack of any over-arching strategy.
There is also a critical lack of resources. When it comes to spending per third-level student, the Republic ranks 14th out of 26 OECD states. Overall investment in education lags behind the OECD average while investment in R&D as a percentage of our wealth is below both the EU and OECD averages.
That said, the OECD also tells the third-level sector itself to raise its game. It wants vastly more international students, closer links with business and a more business-oriented approach to scientific research projects.
The Republic is given great credit for the strides made in the past 40 years. Student numbers have expanded by 2 per cent annually since the 1960s and significant investment in research has been made since the late 1990s.
The OECD states, bluntly, that the third-level system has reached a crossroads. It says Ireland has some way to go to achieve its goal in research and innovation.
The review signals that policymakers here need to make up their mind about what kind of third-level system they really want. A cutting edge, properly funded system like the US, the Nordic states and South Korea or a permanent position in mid-table?
The review accepts the Government's commitment to a world-class third-level sector at face-value. It refers to the Government's "firm intention for Ireland to be a significant base for research and innovation".
But in a key section it cautions: "We do not believe, with the economic and fiscal realities facing Ireland, it will be possible to develop the globally competitive tertiary education system and research capability... by relying on State funding alone."
All of which brings us to the thorny issue of third-level fees. The OECD proposes the return of fees, proper means-testing for grants, and a system of student loans and/or a graduate contribution scheme. The abolition of fees, in any case, has done little, it says, to widen access. A new funding model is required.
So will the report make any difference? Yes, when it comes to structural reform of third-level. There is a logic to its demand for a tertiary education authority to take an overall grip of the sector. It also makes practical suggestions to upgrade research, with a new committee reporting to the Cabinet.
For all that, its key proposal - the return of fees - is unlikely to take flight, at least this side of an election. The Government says the issue is off the agenda for the foreseeable future. The opposition will not countenance the return of fees.
Despite this, the report has achieved a great deal. It has helped to crystallise the issues facing our third-level sector. Crucially, it has raised an issue which cannot be sidestepped: who will pay for the world-class third-level system to which we aspire?