Fine Gael: Is Brian Hayes trying to undermine Fergus O Dowd?

Rebelheart

In this morning's Irish Times education section Brian Hayes, who sided with Richard Bruton in his attempted coup and was therefore removed by Kenny as Education spokesperson, is outlining Fine Gael's education policy. According to the Fine Gael website, Fergus O Dowd has been the Fine Gael spokesperson on Education and Skills since July 2010.

Here's Hayes's interview:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2010/1102/1224282473635.html

Personally I think Hayes would be a terrible Minister for Education, especially given his shameless advocacy of the state continuing to subsidise fee-paying schools by some €100 million per annum at a time when deprived students and students with Special Needs are being denied learning support and SNAs across the state. Then again, many of the people who send their children to fee-paying schools support his party. With such priorities, he'd undoubtedly make a superb minister for fee-paying secondary schools in south Dublin. Anyway, that's why I haven't much time for the guy and am perturbed by his reassumption of the role of Fine Gael education spokesperson.

At any rate it's not looking good for internal Fine Gael cohesion when the ousted education spokesperson is usurping the existing spokesperson in today's paper.

Anybody know what's going on there?

Einhard

Why shouldn't the state subsidise fee paying schools? I presume that the parents of the kids who attend are paying their taxes. Why shouldn't they benefit from them?

Rebelheart

Einhard wrote: »

Why shouldn't the state subsidise fee paying schools? I presume that the parents of the kids who attend are paying their taxes. Why shouldn't they benefit from them?

Because the state should be subsidising state schools, or at least subsidising schools which accept all children regardless of the wealth of their parents. If you, for example, want to send your children to private fee-paying schools, work away - but you pay for that personal choice in full. The idea that the state should use public taxes to subsidise your private desire to separate your children from other children belongs to a former age.

That €100 million subsidy would create much better economies of scale if invested in state-owned schools. But then again the idea that privately-owned religious/sectarian institutions are still the principal beneficiaries of this state handout in 2010, at the expense of a state-owned school system, defies belief.

Einhard

Rebelheart wrote: »

Because the state should be subsidising state schools, or at least subsidising schools which accept all children regardless of the wealth of their parents. If you, for example, want to send your children to private fee-paying schools, work away - but you pay for that personal choice in full. The idea that the state should use public taxes to subsidise your private desire to separate your children from other children belongs to a former age.

I think that kind of rhetoric is from another age, one of class conflict and antagonism. If a person pays their taxes, they're fully entitled to get the services that those taxes pay for. And if they then decide to pay some more, to improve facilities or whatever, then they should be totally entitled to do so. The notion that someone should have to pay for the education of another's child through taxes, but then have to dip further into their own pockets to educate their own is absurd.

Laminations

They don't have to send their kids to fee paying schools, they could educate them in state schools but choose not to. The state should not subsidise these schools. Tax money goes into road and rail infrastructure, available to all to travel on, I pay my taxes but I'm not happy with having to travel with the masses and prefer to use my helicopter. Should the state subsidise that choice of mine while it is providing reasonable alternatives?

Rebelheart is 100% correct

edanto

I'm not convinced Laminations.

The reason being, if all the parents in a normal state school decide that they will each contribute €100 per student towards the school, that's OK, right? And the school can do whatever it wishes with the money, assuming the support of the parents?

It's basically the same concept with private schools. The parents are paying a top-up of a certain amount per student, which gives the school better facilities or the wealth to pay top ups to teachers salaries.

I don't like it per se, but it would seem more unjust to cut those schools off from state funding than the current situation of giving all schools an equal amount per student, and allow parents to top-up if they can afford it.

bijapos

One of the biggest problems with private schools is that some parents cannot send their children to the nearest school to them, (although their tax euros pay the wages of the teachers), but are forced to send their kids to a school further away. Most of the private schools in the area of south Dublin where I live charge around €5-6,000 p.a. which is hardly accessible to the masses.

edanto

On the main question that Rebelheart posed, I wouldn't say that Hayes is trying to undermine O'Dowd just because he wrote that article. He's just using his knowledge and experience to put across his own reform agenda. I think it's pretty good politics from a FG point of view, they are getting prominent coverage on education.

Personally, of the ten points in his article I more or less agree with them all except the first two. But the challenge for the next Minister for Education (FG or Labour would keep me happy) is not in coming up with attractive policies, it's getting those policies through the Dept and the teachers unions.

Zynks

Laminations wrote: »

They don't have to send their kids to fee paying schools, they could educate them in state schools but choose not to. The state should not subsidise these schools. Tax money goes into road and rail infrastructure, available to all to travel on, I pay my taxes but I'm not happy with having to travel with the masses and prefer to use my helicopter. Should the state subsidise that choice of mine while it is providing reasonable alternatives?

Rebelheart is 100% correct

Since we are using analogies I think I have a better one that helicopter/train: how about driving from Dublin to Galway and picking a toll free route or the motorway. It is your call which one you want to use. Both cost the state money, one will cost you to use and you get a better service, the other one is free, but not as good. It is an individual choice, and there is no point on the drivers on the free route complaining about the road compared to the motorway, nor the ones on the motorway giving out about the extra cost.

All tax payers have the same right to have education budget being allocated towards their kids education, with no discrimination if they choose to spend more if they feel they should.

Sierra Oscar

Rebelheart wrote: »

Because the state should be subsidising state schools

They already are, considering their funding comes from the State.

Einhard

Laminations wrote: »

They don't have to send their kids to fee paying schools, they could educate them in state schools but choose not to. The state should not subsidise these schools. Tax money goes into road and rail infrastructure, available to all to travel on, I pay my taxes but I'm not happy with having to travel with the masses and prefer to use my helicopter. Should the state subsidise that choice of mine while it is providing reasonable alternatives?

Rebelheart is 100% correct

I'd disagree 100%, both with the validity of your analogy, and the sentiments behind it. As far as I'm aware, someone operating a private helicopter does not have to pay towards the provision of air traffic control services, nor towards the cost of either the emergency or investigation services should an accident occur. These are funded through general taxation, and the helicopter pilot will already have contiruted towards their provision through his taxes.

Similarly, those who wish to educate their kids privately make a substantial contribution towards the cost of that education through their taxes. The idea that they should pay for an education system from which they receive no benefit, whilst further paying for their own childrens' education from their own pockets, is simply a form of double taxation, and another form of the "screw the wealthy" mentality that often rears its head in Ireland. The state isn't "subsidising" private schools anymore than it's subsidising the education children in public schools. It's all paid for from the same pot, and it would be entirely unreasonable to expect someone to contribute significantly to that pot, and then disbar them from receiving any benefit from it.

Incidentally, I'd point out that those who avail of private education are not the homogenous, disdainful elite that some would portray them. I know of several middle class families who send their kids to private colleges, and do so by making sacrifices elsewhere in their lives. They believe (rightly or wrongly), that private education will give their children the best chance in life, and so forego holidays and other luxuries in order to attain it. Why should a family who make such sacrifices be penalised for doing so? Why should people who make a significant contribution towards the government income be excluded form partaking in the services which their taxes pay towards?

Laminations

Firstly I dont care about the family backgrounds of the individuals availing of private education. Secondly, where do you get this from?

it would be entirely unreasonable to expect someone to contribute significantly to that pot, and then disbar them from receiving any benefit from it.

They have the choice of a public education that is paid for by their taxes, thats the benefit, if they want extra benefit they pay for private grinds etc.

Why should people who make a significant contribution towards the government income be excluded form partaking in the services which their taxes pay towards?

I'd say this about the tax payers who cant afford to send their kids to these private schools. They are the ones who are excluded

The services that they pay for is again, free public education. It is not acceptable for some people to ring fence some of this tax money, add their own and make a private system that is elitist due to its prohibitory entrance fee. Taxes go towrds park maintenance through the OPW. If I set up my own park on private land and charged people entry do you think I also deserve a cut of OPW fees?

You send your child to a state school and if you feel this is insufficient, you pay for the extra benefit of private tuition. I realise this is around about what is happening in private schools just that they've lumped it all together, but its this lumping thats the problem. It moves tax money that is supposed to benefit all out of the reach of those who cant afford to pay the extra amount. Someone who has paid tax, does not get the benefit of the private school, even though their tax has part funded that benefit for the private school kids. Taxes shouldn't be used to subsidise private enterprise

Laminations

Its government subsidised segregation. You'd have issues with it if the private schools had a 'whites only' policy rather than their 'big wallets only' policy.

hallelujajordan

Laminations wrote: »

Firstly I dont care about the family backgrounds of the individuals availing of private education. Secondly, where do you get this from?



They have the choice of a public education that is paid for by their taxes, thats the benefit, if they want extra benefit they pay for private grinds etc.



I'd say this about the tax payers who cant afford to send their kids to these private schools. They are the ones who are excluded

The services that they pay for is again, free public education. It is not acceptable for some people to ring fence some of this tax money, add their own and make a private system that is elitist due to its prohibitory entrance fee. Taxes go towrds park maintenance through the OPW. If I set up my own park on private land and charged people entry do you think I also deserve a cut of OPW fees?

You send your child to a state school and if you feel this is insufficient, you pay for the extra benefit of private tuition. I realise this is around about what is happening in private schools just that they've lumped it all together, but its this lumping thats the problem. It moves tax money that is supposed to benefit all out of the reach of those who cant afford to pay the extra amount. Someone who has paid tax, does not get the benefit of the private school, even though their tax has part funded that benefit for the private school kids. Taxes shouldn't be used to subsidise private enterprise

You are simply being classist . .

. . and in your model the tax money that is supposed to benefit all is moved out of reach of those who can afford to pay extra for a private school . . I actually think this is quite simple and revenue neutral. . . an amount of money is assigned to every child based on their right to an education* . . whether they choose to spend that money in a state school or supplement it with extra and attend a private school is their decision. Your analogies are silly because they assume this subsidy is somehow costing the taxpayer extra. If all the fee-paying schools were to close in the morning the cost of rehousing students in state schools would probably be greater than the cost of the current subsidy . .

*By the way, this is not just government policy, it is actually enshrined in Article 42 of the constitution . . .

Bunreacht na hEireann wrote:

Education Article 42

1. The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2. Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3. 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4. The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

5. In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

Laminations

Classist??

ROLFROLFROLF

And just because its in the constitution doesn't make it right or unchangeable, otherwise we'd still be licking the boots of the catholic church and demonising homosexuals.

The private school moves the benefit of that tax money away from every child. Private education is not available to every child nor affordable to every parent. Go to public shool, pay extra for grinds, extra lessons or whatever, but dont take that tax money nd put it out of reach for the rest of the kids. I'm in favour of people choosing how to educate their kids, once they fund these choices from their own pocket.

hallelujajordan

Laminations wrote: »

Classist??

ROLFROLFROLF

And just because its in the constitution doesn't make it right or unchangeable, otherwise we'd still be licking the boots of the catholic church and demonising homosexuals.

The private school moves the benefit of that tax money away from every child. Private education is not available to every child nor affordable to every parent. Go to public shool, pay extra for grinds, extra lessons or whatever, but dont take that tax money nd put it out of reach for the rest of the kids. I'm in favour of people choosing how to educate their kids, once they fund these choices from their own pocket.

Glad you think its funny, but I suspect you ROFL'd as opposed to ROLF'd

Your argument assumes that in some way, because of the subsidy for private education that those in state schools suffer. It's nonsense. If the private schools closed in the morning, the subsidy would be spent (plus probably a lot more) rehousing the current private pupils in state schools. It is revenue neutral !

The only way the state schools can benefit is if you leave the private pupils in the private schools but deny them the subsidy to which they are constitutionally entitled.


BTW, OT but when did the constitution ever demand that we demonise homosexuals and when did we amend it ?

Liam Byrne

Zynks wrote: »

Since we are using analogies I think I have a better one that helicopter/train: how about driving from Dublin to Galway and picking a toll free route or the motorway. It is your call which one you want to use. Both cost the state money, one will cost you to use and you get a better service, the other one is free, but not as good. It is an individual choice, and there is no point on the drivers on the free route complaining about the road compared to the motorway, nor the ones on the motorway giving out about the extra cost.

Very apt analogy, because FF have ensured that even those who use the free road have to pay out to subsidise the toll company if enough people don't use it.

Not to mention the fact that despite being taxed to keep the free version in good repair and working order, it isn't. So those with more money get a subsidised decent service while those who can't afford it get a sub-standard service....and we're not talking about a "non-motorway", we're talking about potholes and uneven, bumpy surfaces, and floods.

So basically ordinary folk get taxed to use the "free" option, and then get taxed some more so that others can use the "paid" option.

Zynks

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Very apt analogy, because FF have ensured that even those who use the free road have to pay out to subsidise the toll company if enough people don't use it.

Not to mention the fact that despite being taxed to keep the free version in good repair and working order, it isn't. So those with more money get a subsidised decent service while those who can't afford it get a sub-standard service....and we're not talking about a "non-motorway", we're talking about potholes and uneven, bumpy surfaces, and floods.

So basically ordinary folk get taxed to use the "free" option, and then get taxed some more so that others can use the "paid" option.

Hi Liam, I think this is the first time we get to disagree in something

The cost per student to the state, as far as I know, is the same or even lower in a private school. I believe the state pays for the teachers salaries only in private schools (correct me if I am wrong), but even if the cost per student was the same, I believe it is fair - and in accordance with the constitution as per hallelujajordan's post above.

Another point for your consideration is that parents of pupils in private schools are far more likely to be subsidising the public school student through their taxes if we are to believe that private schools are for wealthy people and that a high percentage or workers (at the lower end of the income scale) don't pay any income tax at all.

I know several families with kids in private schools, and most do make sacrifices to provide their children with what they perceive to be a good education (whether true or not), and if they choose to use their money this way, why should that be an issue? Are we trying to bring the country down to the lowest denominator? What next, are we going to start driving Ladas?

hotmail.com

Many of the TDs came from private education (Lenihan included), so no doubt this influences their mindset.

I find it bizarre that people will send their children to private schools when it's provided for free by the state.

Liam Byrne

hotmail.com wrote: »

Many of the TDs came from private education (Lenihan included), so no doubt this influences their mindset.

Doesn't say a lot for the education quality of those schools, although it might explain the deluded sense of entitlement and the apparent "feck the normal people".

Zynks wrote: »

Hi Liam, I think this is the first time we get to disagree in something

Don't worry, Zynks; I was really only commenting on the analogy. This is one are where - if things are done correctly, as you described, there is no real issue.

However when it comes to the "elite" and connected people in this country, at this stage I can't simply 100% accept reassurances that anything is done correctly.....and as I said it does seem to foster the idiotic "L'Oreal" attitude; not tarring everyone with the same brush, but definitely among politicians the sense of entitlement is completely out of kilter with real life and ability.

Zynks wrote: »

What next, are we going to start driving Ladas?

As I read that I got a shiver and I hope it wasn't a premonition.....the shiver was visualising the above as being bloody optimistic.......at least for normal unconnected people.

Zynks

hotmail.com wrote: »

Many of the TDs came from private education (Lenihan included), so no doubt this influences their mindset.

I find it bizarre that people will send their children to private schools when it's provided for free by the state.

Ruary Quinn is a Rock Boy if I am no mistaken, and I consider him to be a very socially aware guy and certainly not elitist. Generalizing is usually a bad idea.

Bizarre? How about bottled water? Big market, including low-middle class, even though it is free at the tap. It is a question of perception of value and personal choice. Isn't freedom of choice great?

Rebelheart

Rebelheart wrote: »

Here's Hayes's interview:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2010/1102/1224282473635.html

Alan Titley of UCC wrote a supremely caustic response, published in today's Irish Times Letters page, to Hayes's above interview:


No more Republic of average

Madam, – It is clear by now that most of us want rid of Fianna Fáil in government and rail against its crass incompetence and neglect of civil society. We cry out for an alternative and wonder why the various opinion polls continue to give the main opposition party, Fine Gael, such paltry ratings.

The answer, however, is writ large in the vacuous meanderings of Brian Hayes (Opinion, November 2nd), who suggests 10 ways “to break the grip of smugness” in our education system. His proposals are either of a level of obviousness – “‘Boost teacher quality”, “Improve the teaching of Maths” – or are so contradictory and pointless as to make you desire an educational system in which their articulation would be met with guffaws of laughter.

Each of his crude points could be met with a brief reply, but it is unlikely that they would penetrate even the outer suburbs of his thinkings. The points system ain’t pretty, but it is fair; publishing school reports favours the already advantaged, which is why he wants it; paying more for university courses that give greater monetary gain means they will always be the preserve of the already privileged; abolishing Irish as a core subject in the Leaving Certificate does not mean that more students will do other languages; “Leaving a teacher in the classroom for 40 years” might actually give us those rare qualities of experience, and what used to be called wisdom.

Then there is “spot the contradiction”. On the one hand, school principals are overburdened with too much administration, and in the next sentence they spend too much time in the classroom. We must have more teaching “evaluation on an ongoing basis” and “mentoring”, presumably going forward, but “a major cull of educational bodies is also needed”. Teachers must be freed up to do what they do best but they’d better be examined and bureaucratised every step of the way. Schools should follow their own agendas, but they sure as hell must teach maths better.

And after that, the gems of wisdom: “Choice is a good thing”, “Teachers need guidance on teaching methodology”, “Good teachers make all the difference”, “parental expectations are very strong factors in why some students go to college”. Funny how nobody ever thought of any of these before.

Somebody once quipped that Brian Hayes was an old man trapped in a young man’s body. It might be truer to say that he is a cliché wrapped in a truism inside a platitude. – Yours, etc,

Prof ALAN TITLEY,
Department of Modern Irish,
University College Cork.

---

Well said - in fact, wonderfully written solid points against Hayes's proposals for our education system. Everything in Hayes's interview was about him making a populist appeal to a certain section of South Dublin society. No more and no less. To think that Hayes could be in charge of underprivileged schools in Cork or Limerick, for example, is a horrifying thought. Titley was on the money especially with his criticism of Hayes's proposal to 'publish school reports': 'publishing school reports favours the already advantaged, which is why he wants it.'

Now, would somebody in Fine Gael -Enda? - please restore Fergus O'Dowd as Fine Gael spokesperson on education? I'd like to hear his views on all of these hugely important issues.