Rachel Barry – SU Education Officer Candidate
After years of waiting, stakeholders in third level education awaited the publication of the government’s National Strategy for Education in 2030 – that’s the Hunt Report to you and me – with bated breath. A strategy years in the making, it was envisaged that the publication of the report would finally inject an element of certainty into a mix of stale policy and covert dealings. However, with so many interested parties to take into account, the Hunt Report fell into an age old trap – in trying to appease everyone, it failed to please anyone.
That isn’t to say that the report is an unmitigated disaster or, as was proposed by UCCSU in a rather bizarre statement, will be ‘consigned to the dustbin of immateriality’. The report is relevant, quite simply because it has to be relevant. We cannot afford to let our national institutions to fall into disrepair due to high demand and poor funding. The aim of the Report, of course, is to provide us with solutions. Unfortunately, we are merely left with questions.
The first part of the report focuses on the role of education in society and how this purpose can be fulfilled. Indeed, there are some decent propositions put forward in this section. Students should be encouraged at the apparent desire to continue investing in research and development, and it makes sound economic sense to reap the rewards of this investment by harnessing the economic potential of intellectual property. Perhaps the best suggestion from the point of view of students is an emphasis on increased participation in evaluating the education system. The importance of the student voice on issues such as quality of teaching is valued in the report, and should the recommendations of compulsory evaluation and, if necessary, up-skilling be implemented they may go some way to combating the problem of poor lecture delivery.
Unfortunately, the rest of the report appears to be a myriad of contradiction and ambiguity. Having marched the streets of the capital in November, students will find the funding chapter of the report of particular interest. Yet, astonishingly, there appears to be no real plan set in place on this issue – the Strategy Report is itself lacking in strategy.
It comes as little surprise to see that the Report favours equitable contributions from students to higher education in the current economic climate, but the Committee appear confused as to their reasoning behind this. On the one hand, they stress the importance of universities for the community and recommend that third level institutions take a more active role in interacting with those outside their walls. Yet on the other, they justify vast increases in student contribution (which could rise to €25,000) by emphasising the private benefits a student receives. This would be somewhat more convincing if the Committee didn’t refer to the USA as a comparator. Yes, American students pay more and have better facilities than Irish students. However, they are also head hunted by companies in their final year of college, whereas their Irish counterparts scrap amongst themselves for jobs or leave the country due to a complete lack of graduate employment strategy. If these are the private benefits referred to in the Report, they don’t seem too attractive.
Of course, we have to be pragmatic – funding has to come from somewhere. The Hunt Report suggests a student loan scheme, but refrains from even discussing how such a scheme might operate. Who will give these loans and how will the capital be raised? Will we rely on our failing banks to prop up higher education or will a new, independent body be established? At 134 pages long, the Report is no bedtime read but a failure to even discuss such crucial issues is a huge failing for a document that claims so much. Students from rural backgrounds will also be adversely affected, as plans to take into account assets as well as income when assessing the amount a student should contribute are set to hugely disadvantage students from the farming community.
Ultimately, the Report has some decent proposals, but the recommendation that another expert group be set up to decide on funding strategy leaves stakeholders feeling rather cheated, especially after all the time and expense that has gone into generating this ‘strategy’.
