Teaching Matters Prof Tom CollinsSome of the most profound transformations in Irish life since the foundation of the State have happened with little public debate. The seismic shift in the Irish economic direction overseen by Seán Lemass and TK Whitaker from the mid 1950s, and which was so fundamental in the evolution of modern Ireland, for instance, was never the subject of a Dáil vote.
As parties across the political spectrum prepare to embark on significant tax-cutting strategies subsequent to the forthcoming general election, there is little public discussion on what that means for the nature of the State, the nature of citizenship and the kind of society we wish to create.
Aristotle propounded the view that "man is by nature a political animal", ideally fitted to live in a society with others on the basis of an agreed moral code. Philosophers such as Hegel brought this view even further, asserting that individual consciousness was impossible if not developed within a social context. One's sense of oneself and one's identity, then, are derived from - though not determined by - the interaction between the individual and the wider social entity. On the other hand, the "free market" position takes the view that individuals pursuing their own private interests, with little or no State intervention or regulation, is the best way to maximize the "wealth of nations".
So what has all this to do with Ireland's taxation policy? When cuts in income tax began in Ireland in the 1990s, they had a clear policy purpose, ie to foster social partnership. Tax cuts provided the foundation which allowed for smaller pay claims on employers and allowed unions, employers and government to enter new arrangements in the management of the State. These cuts led to a strengthening of the State's institutions and were critical in underpinning current economic success.
No such rationale underpins current proposals. Firstly, it is not evident that there is now a widespread public demand for income tax cuts. The social purpose of the proposed cuts is also different to the earlier ones. Instead of being primarily a lever for securing agreement between the social partners, tax cuts now more explicitly aim to enhance private consumption capacity and, by implication, to reduce the State's role in providing critical services where the individual is unable to secure them privately.
The debate on tax cuts therefore needs to extend from one concerned merely with the additional income in people's pockets to include the likely impact on key public investment areas, particularly education. The State's taxation policy is the key redistributional device through which the State's citizens are entitled to expect that they will participate in the "common wealth" of the society. This expectation is based on their capacity as citizens, not on their capacity as customers or consumers. The entitlements of citizenship override considerations of ability to pay.
The privatising of what were former public services has led to an increasing segregation of social groups and to a decline in the visibility and prominence of poverty in the national consciousness. As affluent people desert the public services, teachers and healthcare professionals are increasingly becoming the main occupants of those zones where poverty becomes a public problem. Whether in classrooms or in A & E departments in public hospitals, these professionals must address on a daily basis the fallout of investment decisions in public services.
The most recent Eurostat figures (2003) showed that Ireland spends 4.4 per cent of its GDP on education - or €5,299 per full-time student. The average for the original 15 EU countries is 5.5 per cent and €6,002 respectively. While Ireland's spend has improved in recent years to a current figure of about 5.8 per cent, our position relative to our competitor countries has probably changed little. Ireland lags behind almost all of the most developed EU countries in its spend per student. Denmark, for instance, spends 7 per cent of its GDP on education and its expenditure per student is almost €2,000 more - at €7,251 - than Ireland's.
An additional €2,000 spend per student on Irish education to bring us on a par with Denmark would cost about €2 billion. This would transform mass education in Ireland. It would guarantee free pre-school education to all children; it would dramatically reduce class sizes in primary and second level; it would provide for comprehensive specialist support systems for children with special needs; it would enhance targeted initiatives such as the Deis programme for disadvantaged schools; it would open professional development opportunities for teachers; it would address longtime neglect in the resourcing of adult and community education and it would allow for continuous upgrading of educational facilities and equipment.
The individual gains of tax cuts should be offset against the many social losses and opportunities foregone which arise from such a policy. More than any other kind of public expenditure, investment in education is an investment in the future. In the 1960s the then taoiseach Jack Lynch used to remark that it was not that Ireland was too poor to invest in education; it was that it was too poor not to invest in it.
At a time of unprecedented prosperity in Ireland, much of it attributable to investment in education by earlier and poorer generations, it is ironic that we are choosing this time in our history to pull away from the unique opportunity which now presents itself to this generation: to complete the development of a universal mass education system.
Prof Tom Collins is head of education at NUI Maynooth
