Another bout of consultation on education is about to begin. Is this anopportunity to get things right? Or just more waffle, asks Seán Flynn Education Editor?
Noel Dempsey is one of the more genial politicians one could meet. But even he get shirty when you begin to tear away at his vision for some aspect of education policy. The media, he says, bemoans the lack of vision in our political life on a daily basis, yet when someone comes along with a dash of the stuff, they are criticised and ridiculed.
It is a fair point. But it also reflects the deep cynicism ofmuch public debate. There is plenty of that in education circles.
When I asked one leading education figure about Noel Dempsey's "Big Idea" for a new bout of consultation on policy, he was distinctly nonplussed. "Politicians can talk forever about their vision. Real politics is about real decision and about allocating real money. This new vision stuff is just more waffle," he said.
When Noel Dempsey first floated his plans at the ASTI conference earlier this year, the union's general secretary, Charlie Lennon, was also unimpressed. "There are a dozen reports - all of them the product of an elaborate consultative process. . . sitting on the Minister's desk," he said.
It is certainly the case that the education sector has been probed thoroughly in the past decade. With the exception of the health service, there can hardly be an area of the public sector more analysed and assessed than education.
At any given time, there is a blizzard of reports, reviews and task forces raining down. In the recent past, we have had special reports on third-level disadvantage, on the effectiveness of Transition Year, on the role of civics and social education in schools.
There are scores of others. There is also a standing committee on educational disadvantage, not to mention groups like the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, which advise the Minister on such matters. There is also an input from the OECD in Paris. And submissions to the Minister from dozens of education partners.
There was also, of course, a welter of education analysis during the 1990s when Niamh Bhreathnach launched first the Green Paper and then the White Paper on Education after - you guessed it - an elaborate consultative process with the education partners and interested groups.
So are we in for another bout of consultation that produces reams of paper but precious few ideas? Perhaps not. What marks this initiative out from other such projects in the past is the radicalism Noel Dempsey brings to the projects.
Dempsey has never bought into the cosy cliché that the Republic has one of the best education systems in the world. While he admires its many merits, he is also scathing about its shortcomings. His attempt to bring back college tuition fees, while politically naïve, sprang from a burning anger about the inequality in our system of third-level education.
He has also been critical of other aspects of education. Earlier this year, he said: "The pace of change (in education) can be excessively slow and sometimes the lowest common denominator prevails. We have had a tendency, over the years, of disagreeing rather than confronting and dealing with what needs to be done."
Broadly, he says, we have an education system that is good for a fair percentage of our people. But it is a "one size fits all" system, that can offer very little to those suffering from disadvantage or those with special educational needs.
Dempsey has hinted at other problems including the lack of a middle-management structure in schools, the need to update assessment of students, the need to give a real role to parents and the need to bring greater public accountability to the system. He also appears exasperated by the way the education agenda remains dominated by the "usual suspects" in the teacher unions and so on.
Parents and teachers could add their own list of complaints. Rotten, leaky school buildings and the lack of back-up administrative and resource support in schools come to mind.
If Noel Dempsey is true to his word, the agenda that emerges from this process will genuinely be set by what he calls the "consumers" of education. Instead of being virtually silent partners in education policy, parents will come in from the cold.
It is a bold and radical plan. Dempsey says he is determined to drive it forward with vigour over the coming months. He must also ensure that the process acts a catalyst for real change. He must guard against another talking shop in education.
