I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the publication of the OECD report, Education at a Glance. My colleague, the Minister for Education and Children, Deputy Noel Dempsey, accompanied the President on her State visit to China and is not here today.
Education is topical because it touches on the lives of everyone from parents to students to businesses, communities and various non-governmental organisations. Each year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publishes Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. At 451 pages, the document is more than a glance. It covers the vast and complex area of education in the 30 member countries of the OECD plus a number of other countries such as China, Russia India and Brazil. A major part of this year's report deals with the results of the OECD programme for international student assessment, PISA. PISA is a survey of various areas of achievement with a particular focus on literacy in reading, mathematics and science as well as a number of cross-curricular abilities.
The data in the most recent Education at a Glance come from PISA 2000. Since 1992, the volume and range of statistics on education at international level has grown enormously. It is now possible to compare countries on a whole range of indicators from expenditure, class size, teachers, school organisation, use of computers, student achievement to participation in adult education. The demand for timely, accurate and relevant measures of educational development is to the fore more than ever nowadays recognising the fundamental role of education in our world.
It is timely that we engage in a more serious and detailed consideration of some of the key findings in the recent report. It is easy to focus on one or two indicators to demonstrate some particular point of view. It is much harder to take an overall view that takes into account the many facets of Irish education in a global context. The OECD report shows Irish education in a favourable light on many fronts of international comparison. It suggests that we are above average on many aspects of performance and that public and private investment in education has yielded good results.
The facts speak for themselves in that, despite media reports which casually suggest otherwise, Ireland's performance in reading literacy at age 15 is the fifth highest of all 27 OECD member countries reported, thanks to the dedicated work of students, teachers and families. We have a substantial literacy problem with some of the older age cohorts, where the education system did not succeed in earlier generations. In scientific literacy we are above average at ninth place internationally, while in mathematics we were at least as good as the international average.
Ireland stands out as having high rates of graduation at third level diploma and certificate levels. Drop-out at degree level here is much lower than elsewhere, although the opposite is true in the case of certificate and diploma courses. Class size has fallen at first and second levels over the past decade. In the case of junior cycle at second level we are below the OECD country average of 24, with a class size of 21.9.
Average class size at primary level in Ireland was 24.5 in 2000-01 compared to an OECD country average of 22.07. OECD countries which have larger average class size at primary level include Australia, Korea and Japan; these are relatively high achievers in international comparisons of reading and mathematics. Smaller class sizes can help performance but many other factors come into play.
The pupil-teacher ratio at primary level, which is typically lower than average class size due to differences in the teacher and student instruction load, is still above average here at 20.3 compared to 17.0 internationally.
At third level, our ratio of full-time equivalent students to full-time equivalent teachers was 16 compared to 16.5 on average across OECD countries. In all countries, some of the difference in reading literacy at age 15 across schools is associated with the socio-economic status of families but the difference tends to be less here.
We continue to invest heavily in third level where, in 2000, we spent more in absolute terms per student than the OECD country average. Over the period 1995-2000, spending in real terms increased by 38% over all levels of education, the second highest of 19 countries. At third level the increase was 80%, the second highest among OECD countries.
Starting from a relatively low base in terms of educational completion four decades ago, successive Governments have enabled increasing numbers to participate up to the completion of second level education. We have now almost closed the gap with other countries in terms of completion of senior cycle and the equivalent of leaving certificate. Close to 80% of young persons here complete some form of qualification up to leaving certificate standard. Our level of educational attainment is similar to the OECD average for people up to the age of 35.
More needs to be done, however, especially in terms of addressing inequalities in school completion among girls and boys where the latter are much more likely to drop out of school. Subject choice and take-up of scientific and technical subjects for girls need to be improved. In addition, educational attainment among the middle aged and elderly is low by international comparisons. Lifelong learning does not stop at school or employment. With changing age profiles and in a fast changing world, we need to invest in lifelong learning at all stages. Up to now, we gave priority to initial education from first to third level.
The OECD report refers to recent data, typically 2000-01 for most indicators. Improvements or change since 2000 are not reflected in the figures shown in the report. It is important to recall that this Government continues to invest heavily in education at all levels, especially at primary level where the number of teachers has increased from 21,100 in 1998 to a current total of 24,700. Overall, the number of resource teachers has increased from 104 in 1998 to over 2,000 currently while the numbers of special needs assistants have grown from about 300 to over 4,000 full-time and almost 1,200 part-time staff at present.
Going forward, we need to pay particular attention to early childhood education and care, as well as continuing education and training in the workplace and the wider community. In the context of scarce resources and competing demands on the public finances, we must keep the focus on disadvantage.
The OECD report also points to a number of areas where we need to do better. Some 11% of 15 year olds perform at level one or below in the reading literacy proficiency scales and while this is much lower than the OECD average of 18%, there is no room for complacency.
We have one of the highest gaps between boys and girls in completion of second level education, with a difference of close to 14% while girls perform better than boys in international test scores of reading and mathematics.
The age of commencement of education in modern foreign languages is high. Expenditure by resource category at primary and second levels is heavily skewed towards the cost of employing teaching staff. This reflects relatively high levels of teacher pay compared to other OECD countries as well as a relatively lower proportion of non-teaching staff in total pay expenditure. Expenditure per pupil-student is heavily skewed towards higher education compared to elsewhere. For example, we have a ratio of 3.27 for spending per third level student divided by spending per pupil at primary level. Only Mexico and Slovakia have higher ratios. These figures do not provide a case for cutting back on third level; rather they point up a need to devote relatively more resources at primary level, especially in cases of disadvantage.
The allocation of resources for education by level and type of education is a difficult political challenge. The question of who – the individual, family, society or corporate – should pay for education and training, and at what level, is also a vexed issue in most OECD countries. Families and individuals spend a lot of time, money and support for learning activities inside and outside the classroom. Unfortunately, the OECD does not have complete data on total private expenditure for education and still less on the non-monetary expenditure, which families and communities invest in children and young people. Available data indicate that the proportion of total expenditure accounted for by private sources, be they family, corporate or others, is about average for OECD countries at first, second and third levels.
The proportion of private funding for third level institutions dropped from 30.3% to 20.8% between 1995 and 2000 reflecting the introduction of the free fees scheme for full-time undergraduate students from the EU. These figures are exclusive of student maintenance support.
Considerable focus has been placed by international comparisons of public spending on education as a percentage of GDP. Although our public expenditure on education has risen rapidly in the 1990s, GDP has risen even more rapidly, partly thanks to investments in education in the past. GDP provides a distorted picture of comparisons in this regard because of the unusually high levels of profit repatriation by overseas companies in this country. A more reliable comparison based on gross national product or GNP shows that we are closer to the international average.
It is worth recalling that statistics about education, whether at national or international level, can never provide a complete account of learning in the many areas it takes place, be it the family, peer groups, school, community or the workplace. Neither can the quality of learning and the many factors that go to influence education be adequately captured in statistics and indicators. Nevertheless, sound empirical evidence is essential to back up public policy. Without data we are only opinion holders.
The success of the economy in the 1990s is generally acknowledged as having resulted from many factors, including cumulative investment in education and the general quality of the learning environment in schools, families and communities. Education has contributed in a powerful way to opening up our society and enhancing the quality of life for many people. However, the extent of early school departure and the persistence of under-achievement, particularly among the disadvantaged, points to a need to give priority to educational equity at all levels.
Some areas of educational investment will take time to catch up, including the provision of new school buildings, the employment of non-teaching professional staff, and expenditure for other learning supports. However, in the main, we have got the fundamentals right in terms of drawing on the foundations laid by families, giving priority to the quality of teachers and teaching, giving responsibility to schools to achieve and improve on student-staff ratios as resources permit and making the needs of students with special learning needs a priority.
I am sure that many Senators will wish to contribute to this debate and I look forward to hearing their comments on the education system.