TEACHING MATTERS:SO FAR in the outcry concerning the Budget cuts in education, the focus has remained firmly on where the cutbacks have fallen, writes Prof Tom Collins

It is clear they are concentrated mainly on early-life education, in primary and second-level schools predominantly, and within those sectors, on those parts that are most marginal. In this regard, three measures stand out: the number of teachers of English as a second language has been capped at two in all schools, regardless of the composition of the student body; supports to Travellers' education have been reduced; and school library supports have been cut.

At a time of retraction, it is also instructive to look at those areas which escape cuts. Within the world of education, the fourth-level sector seems to have emerged largely unscathed.

In 2005, the then taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, said: "We want to encourage more third-level students to pursue additional postgraduate study and research at fourth level - a vibrant fourth-level sector that will produce our future knowledge leaders and underpin a climate of innovation."

As part of this objective, the National Development Plan foresees an investment of €7.5 billion in science, technology and innovation between 2007 and 2013 - an average annual investment of €1.1 billion.

Notwithstanding the admirable and ambitious nature of this objective, it gives rise to a number of questions. Two in particular stand out. One concerns the value-for-money aspect of the investment, ie what are the projected returns? And is it appropriate that the costs and the risks are borne by the taxpayer?

With regard to the issue of value for money, those who advocate investment in science and technology research draw attention to its role in underpinning a knowledge economy and in supporting innovation. These arguments are persuasive at a general level and something of an article of faith in public-policy development.

However, it is important to recognise that there are many steps between a significant investment in basic research and returns on this investment accruing from commercial exploitation. Even in those cases where research activity lends itself to commercial exploitation, there is no reason why any such exploitation should occur in the country of origin.

The complexity of modern research means little of it is conducted in secret and companies which invested in and developed sunrise technologies are not always the ones to move them into production and profitability. It can be a case of the second mouse getting the cheese.

The challenge with investment in research is to ensure the returns accrue to the investor. This applies equally to a country as to a company.

The second question is concerned with who benefits from the investment. It is reasonable to suggest Government investment in education should look to optimising its public returns rather than private ones. Generally, as one progresses through the education levels, from primary to fourth level, increasing public costs translate into increasing private returns.

So apart altogether from wondering how a country builds a fourth level if it neglects the earlier levels, it is difficult to support a choice in favour of the higher levels at the expense of the earlier ones. Is this a clear choice in favour of private returns at the expense of the public purse?