The current Irish presidency of the EU provides a real opportunity for issues in education to be highlighted and progressed. Or does it? John Downes reports

Launching his Government's education programme for the Irish EU presidency recently, the Minister for Education, Noel Dempsey, outlined some of the main areas where he believes real progress can be made. Chief among these was a major review of the education and training aspects of the so-called Lisbon strategy, which aims to make the EU the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.

Yet people working in the education field have mixed views on how much real progress will be made during this presidency. Some believe it offers an opportunity for the Government to focus on a number of key issues identified in the Lisbon strategy with a view to making them work. Others, however, believe the Government's track record to date gives little hope that anything concrete will be achieved.

But this is not the first time Ireland has held the presidency of the EU. So have any changes taken place in the Irish education system as a result of the last presidency in 1996? And what does this say about the possibility for significant progress this time around?

One of the key policies to emerge out of the previous Irish presidency of the EU was a new emphasis on the question of life-long learning, says Professor John Coolahan of NUI Maynooth. While this was something that had already been explored by EU policy-makers, Ireland succeeded in giving the strategy a fresh focus, he believes.

As a result, a strategy for life-long learning was agreed by all 15 member-states in December 1996. In time, Coolahan says, this came to be recognised as a key principle for education in the new century.

"There is no doubt that changes have taken place (since the last Irish presidency)," he says. "An extraordinary shift has taken place in the past five years." And indeed, the establishment of bodies such as the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, which facilitates the development, recognition and award of qualifications here, as well as the growth of access programmes at third level can be seen as concrete examples of this progress.

With regard to teacher development, Moira Leyden, assistant general secretary of the Association of Secondary School Teachers Ireland (ASTI), agrees that significant progress was made during the last presidency.

"The fact that there was an Irish EU presidency gave a great fillip, it made us feel that the agenda for educational reform was linked to broader societal goals - social and political goals. In a year of intense educational change. . . it kept the momentum going."

One example of this, she says, was the establishment of an in-career development unit for teachers within the Department of Education and Science. According to Leyden, this gave a huge boost to the idea of in-service training and curriculum innovation and development for teachers.

However, she is less enthusiastic about the prospects for progress this time around. Teachers feel, she believes, that they will have fewer opportunities to participate in this EU presidency than the last one.

"I don't think there is the same sense of engagement in education now," she says. "The climate has changed. Teachers are feeling undervalued and isolated." This sidelining of teachers is ironic, she says, given the fact that some of the key issues that will be addressed during this presidency will include standards in education and teacher retention.

Others, such as John Mac Gabhann of the Teachers' Union of Ireland (TUI), are even less optimistic about real progress being made during the current Irish EU presidency.

"There is precious little direct connection between the previous presidency and the development of education here," he believes. "There is no question that at least some of our legislation has been prompted by the EU. For example, the establishment of the Qualifications Authority. . . and an emphasis on the maintenance of quality.

"One of the things we would clearly welcome is the transposition into Irish law of EU employment legislation," he says.

"There is the potential to embarrass the domestic Government if it is seen to be at odds with EU policy and legislation. . . but this is as much an effect of Irish EU membership as anything to do with the Irish EU presidency," he says.

Mac Gabhann agrees that education will play a central role in the implementation of the aims of the Lisbon strategy. However, he says a lack of investment in Post-Leaving Certificate(PLC) courses, where approximately half of students are adults returning to education, threatens the possibility of any real progress.

Add to these cuts to childcare development grants and to the Community Employment schemes, and the potential for progress on one of the educational aspects of the Lisbon strategy is, he believes, doubtful.

"The PLC area addresses those students who are seeking to further their education, either as a bridge to employment or to further education," he says. "A huge majority of these adult learners would not consider going to university. So this addresses the area of educational disadvantage as well.

"If you want a knowledge society that embraces everyone, you have got to tackle disadvantage. Cuts to childcare grants, for example, are preventing women, in particular, from returning to education. . . these cuts are at odds with Government policy," he says.

Budgets for teacher training have also been tightened, he says.

"We are aghast at the gap between rhetoric and practice. On the one hand, it seems the Government is suggesting that teachers should upskill regularly, yet on the other hand there have been quite crippling cutbacks on support services. You can't have it both ways if the resources that allow teachers to upskill are withdrawn."

Irish universities have also been vocal in their criticisms of the lack of funding for third-level education in last December's budget.

The Conference of Heads of Irish Universities believes there is a clear disparity between the aims of the Lisbon strategy and the Government's own actions.

By pausing funding for university research in 2003 and reducing the capital funding provision for universities from €51 million to €14 million during 2003, the Minister has relegated higher education and research to the lowest of his priorities, the heads say.

When coupled with an effective cut in recurrent grants to universities of 10 per cent, the Minister's response to the declared Lisbon target of "a substantial increase in per capita investment in human resources" has been to leave universities with a shortfall of €800 per student.

This is hard to understand, says the organisation, given the acknowledgment by the European Commission of the need for Europe to have a first-class university system to achieve the ambitions of the Lisbon strategy.

Will Priestley of the Union of Students of Ireland also cautions against what he sees as a risk that education might become commodified as a result of the Lisbon strategy.

"We would welcome the development of research facilities, but we don't want education to become just a commodity. For example, there is a risk that people won't study subjects such as history or sociology, because they are not always seen as being directly linked to getting a job."

The Government, then, has set itself an ambitious programme with relation to the education section of its EU presidency mandate. For such admirable targets to be met, however, given a teaching community which feels increasingly isolated, and cutbacks to those very programmes that could play a crucial role in implementing the Lisbon agenda there is clearly much still to be done at home.

Ireland's EU presidency: The key goals for education

A major review of the education and training aspects of the Lisbon strategy.

The development of the Europass initiative, a European framework for the transparency of qualification to facilitate mobility between member-states.

The development of common principles for the validation of informal and non-formal learning (e.g on-the-job training).

Quality assurance initiatives in the field of vocational and educational training.

The amendment of appropriate legislation governing some education institutions to facilitate the enlargement process.