TALK BACK:There is an emerging consensus that all Government departments – including Education – must take their share of the pain during this economic crisis. I don't agree.

What Colm McCarthy and his Bord Snip team have failed to consider is the fact that cuts in expenditure in one area can (and often do) lead to even higher increases in expenditure in others.

There are now more than 100,000 young people under 25 in receipt of benefit. This costs the taxpayer more than a billion euro per year. For every week that a person remains on benefit – defined as not actively involved in either work, education or training – their skills deteriorate and their chances of returning to the labour force decreases. Very quickly they drift into long-term unemployment.

We must act now to upskill the unemployed through the education and training. But at times it seems like we’re doing precisely the opposite.

To give but one example, the State is only funding an additional 1,500 post-Leaving Cert places this year – even though 30,000 young people are seeking places.

Before we implement any of the education and training cuts recommended by Bord Snip, we should reread the report of the Expert Group on Future Skills Needs. This tells us where the jobs are likely to be in five to 10 years time.

This data is readily available, and many of the participants in the recent Farmleigh Conference were specific on the knowledge and skills Ireland needs to acquire to restore our competitiveness. We need to act now on these recommendations.

We might also assess the strengths and weaknesses of our education and training system, and the capacity (or otherwise) of our education and training institutions.

Other questions arise. Should we transfer FÁS’s training role and its lavish budget to the institute of technology sector? Where FÁS traditionally focused on the skills required within the building and construction industry, the ITs have the skills set needed to fire the new economy.

TO PAY OR NOT TO PAY ....

The State has for many years given far less financial support to fee-paying schools than to those within the so called “free fees” scheme. These schools do not receive a capitation grant or a range of other supports. They get fewer guidance counsellors and from this year they have fewer teachers. These schools have accepted this situation, because they know that financial support from parents counterbalances the smaller State contribution.

What is the motivation of those who want to stop the payment of teacher salaries in fee-paying schools? Is it to punish parents who are willing to pay to provide the best chance in life for their children? Is it driven by a belief that if the money used to pay teachers’ salaries in fee-paying schools was used to provide further financial support for socially-disadvantaged schools it would result in an increase in educational attainment within these schools?

The level of State funding in disadvantaged schools, however high, will never counterbalance the lack of a supportive environment for education within the homes and communities from which these schools draw their students. We should not attempt to punish parents who pay fees out of our collective sense of guilt. These parents have paid their taxes.

Brian Mooney is a guidance counsellor in Dublin