In 2004, at the request of the then minister for education, Noel Dempsey, I participated in eight public meetings in various parts of the country at which those attending were asked to give their views on the education system.
The exercise was an interesting one, although somewhat less useful than might have been hoped. One reason for this was that very many of those attending were so preoccupied with issues currently affecting their offspring - such as a perceived need for special assistance for children who were finding difficulty with school work - that there was little or no discussion of broader issues.
Higher education was almost wholly ignored, which could perhaps be interpreted as showing some kind of negative evidence of public satisfaction with its performance, but was more probably a reflection of a general feeling that at that later stage of their lives students can look after their own educational needs.
The narrowing down of discussion to what were seen as aspects of education for which the Government is directly responsible also reflected the fact that these meetings offered a unique opportunity to communicate directly with the minister and those of his officials who were present. But it also became clear from the very first meeting that parents and students were intimidated by the presence of some of their children's teachers at these meetings. One or two made clear their concerns about this, but other students and parents were clearly afraid to raise the issue publicly, preferring to complain privately to people like myself who had been invited to monitor the meetings.
A further complication was the fact that some ASTI activists used every meeting that I attended to pursue their campaign against the Government - to the intense resentment of those for whose particular benefit these meetings had been arranged.
In addition to these public meetings, three special meetings were arranged for the benefit of parents from disadvantaged areas - two of which I attended. These were particularly useful meetings, for these parents were very acute in their criticism of aspects of the educational system, of which they displayed an impressive technical command.
Moreover, because no teachers were present on these occasions, there were no inhibitions in the criticisms of the some members of the teaching force.
It had been intended, at my suggestion, to hold several separate meetings with students, again in the absence of teachers. In the event only one such meeting was held - with nine to 12-year-old primary students from around the country. While I regretted that no meetings were held with second-level students, I have to say that the primary students were most impressive. I sat in on a discussion between them on early school leaving, about which all of them seemed to have had experience either within their extended family or among their friends. Their analysis of the causes of early school leaving was very well-informed, and they appeared to have given thought to what might be done with a view to tackling this problem.
I came away reinforced in my conviction, formed almost half a century ago - but firmly resisted at that time by a secretary of the Department of Education to whom I communicated my views - that students, as the recipients of education, should be the first people to be consulted about how to improve the system.
Data produced last week by the CSO about aspects of education throw some light upon the progress we have been making in tackling student drop-out. These new figures show that in the recent short period from 2002 to 2005, the proportion of the 18 to 24-year-old group who hadn't got beyond lower secondary level, and have not since returned to education, fell by one-sixth, and was last year one-fifth below the EU average, and also below the figure for the UK.
We know that in addition to about 15 per cent of school students who continue in further education, some 60 per cent now enter third level - a figure that seems to be about one-third higher than in England - a country which, it has to be said, has always had a high drop-out rate at the end of secondary education.
The extent to which education is less valued in England than in Ireland became very evident several years ago when the Conservatives actually attacked the Labour government for setting too high a target for entry to higher education: viz., 50 per cent of each cohort of young people. I cannot imagine any Irish politician adopting such a stance.
Of course, it takes time for the expansion of higher education to make an impact on the composition of the labour force. First of all, there is always a drop-out rate from higher education and, while the Irish university drop-out rate is one of the lowest in the world, that from institutes of technology has in the past been very high - although it is believed to have improved in recent years.
Because in the past we were an under-educated country, but have in recent years been catching up very rapidly, the curve of increase in the proportion of young workers with higher education has been rising fast.
Last week's new CSO figures show that in the nine years between 1996 and 2005 the number of young people aged 25-34 with degrees doubled from 200,000 to almost 400,000. Given that since the time when that age cohort entered higher education in the first half of 1990s the percentage entering higher education has risen by half, we can expect a further very large increase in the proportion and number of degree-holding workers in the years ahead.
Of course this process is operating in parallel with a rapid decline in the number of under-educated young people. Of those aged 20-24 last year, less than one in seven had failed to complete the Leaving Certificate - whereas in 1996 that figure was well above one-fifth. We seem to be making good progress towards a target of 90 per cent reaching Leaving Certificate level.
This is just as well, for these recent data confirm that unemployment is greatly influenced by education. This time last year unemployment of people aged over 25 averaged 3.6 per cent, but this figure ranged from a very low 1.8 per cent for those with degrees up to 7.4 per cent - four times higher - for those who had failed to pass the Intermediate/Group Certificate.