How would Libertarianism work in an Irish context?

Loire

Hi everybody.

A bit about me first if I may. I'm new to this forum and I've followed the threads on Libertarianism for the past few days and whilst some of the posts have gotten heated/personal, overall they have been very interesting. I am an economics graduate from about 15 years ago but apart from reading the odd article here and there, I have never really gotten back into it. Libertarianism wasn't really covered as part of my degree but I remember covering a little of Austrian economics as part of an Economic History class but that's about it. I would generally favour a smaller government, open competition and would be against the minimum wage. I also believe the dole should be on a sliding scale. Having said that, those who cannot work due to mental/physical impairment should be very well looked after by the state (as long as it is not open to abuse).

OK...to the topic at hand:

I was wondering if it would be possible to debate the merits of Libertarianism in an Irish-only context.

Perhaps we could start the ball rolling with a specific area -

The provision of education in rural Ireland

As I understand it Libertarianism would favour the removal by the state in providing education. How would this work in a small, West of Ireland area where there is currently, say, a 2-teacher school with 20 children? Surely this would not be profitable for a private organisation?

Hopefully, this debate will stay on topic and we can have a good debate. Once we reach a consensus (hopefully), perhaps we can then debate how something else would work in Ireland.

Thanks!

Loire.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Loire

Thanks for your input Permabear.

I always find it amusing that private schools in this country continually top the Sunday Times list of students going to 3rd level when, by and large, the teachers teaching them came from the same pool as those in the public system. It's not the full story, granted, as it could be argued that the majority of parents sending their children to private schools do so as they see the benefits of education and therefore doing well in the class is the norm rather than in lower socio-economic schools where those doing well can get bullied etc.

Regarding the rural schools, I agree..I would see massive closures if this were to happen. Whilst it may seem the end of the world for some, most people in rural areas are already travelling to larger towns/villages anyway for work so it may not be that much of an inconvenience. Obviously, some people would suffer more than others and this, along with other functions no longer provided by the state, would see a more rapid move of people to urban areas. The "country" would then be the preserve, largely of farmers.

If we move up from remote, rural areas, to a rural village/town where there is only enough children for 1 school to operate at a profit, then I could see a local monopoly situation as the set up costs to aquire buildings and also to have enough staff in place to teach a broad range of subjects would be quite high....the incumbent would have a clear advantage here. Perhaps, then, if Libertarianism was applied to education in Ireland, it would only be suitable to Dublin, Cork and maybe one or two other cities where the number of students would enable competition?

Loire.

Suryavarman

First off, a school doesn't need to be for profit. It could easily be run by a charity or the local community.

In this particular example we have 20 children. We'll assume that those children are from 10 different families. What we could do is split them into two different classes and have them educated at home. If there is somebody in each family that doesn't do the traditional Monday-Friday 9-5 job then they could have a day off during the week and on that day they take 10 kids and teach them. Then on another day another family could take the class and so on. With the advent of internet resources like the Khan Academy this gives the "teacher" a lot of time to work with just one child, especially if the class sizes were only 10 students. Now you might frown on people without teaching degrees doing the teaching but according to this Washington Times article on home-schooling even parents without college degrees were vastly outperforming public schools:

As one would expect, the education level of parents did affect the results. For example, home-school students of parents without college degrees scored, on average, at the 83rd percentile for the core subjects. When one parent had a college degree, those students scored at the 86th percentile, and when both parents had a college degree, those students scored at the 90th percentile. There was virtually no difference, however, between the scores of students whose parents were certified teachers and those who were not.

While the system I outlined isn't exactly home-schooling it is very similar. I might also point out that this system would be for the poorest of parents that couldn't afford tuition fees.

To go back to your example of 20 students and 2 teachers. Who says we need 2 teachers? Even with 1 teacher for 20 students, class sizes are smaller than what we already have. Currently average class sizes are 28 students in primary schools and 20 in secondary, if that's the average think about how many classes contain more than 30 students! And for those classes we're paying through the nose. If we went for a fee of €2,500 per student, we could give €2,000 to the teacher (for a salary of €40,000 a year) and €500 for school expenses such as heating and electricity. The community or a charity could build the school and there could be fundraisers throughout the year for other expenses and books. Even for a family with two children and the two parents working 40 hours a week @ €5 an hour that's a quarter of their annual income. Disagree with me if you wish but I don't think that will be a very common occurrence and it's probably still a better position than what we have now.

That is all achievable through the just the parents themselves. There is still the options of free schools run by charities or by the church. There also the possibility of scholarships for high performing children to attend top class schools.

Loire

Suryavarman wrote: »

First off, a school doesn't need to be for profit. It could easily be run by a charity

Hi Suryavarman.

I think, and I may be wrong, that the vast majority of Irish people would have a big problem with this in principal: A first world country relying on charity to provide education for some of it's citizens.

Suryavarman wrote: »

or the local community.

In this particular example we have 20 children. We'll assume that those children are from 10 different families. What we could do is split them into two different classes and have them educated at home. If there is somebody in each family that doesn't do the traditional Monday-Friday 9-5 job then they could have a day off during the week and on that day they take 10 kids and teach them. Then on another day another family could take the class and so on.
With the advent of internet resources like the Khan Academy this gives the "teacher" a lot of time to work with just one child, especially if the class sizes were only 10 students. Now you might frown on people without teaching degrees doing the teaching but according to this Washington Times article on home-schooling even parents without college degrees were vastly outperforming public schools:

While the system I outlined isn't exactly home-schooling it is very similar. I might also point out that this system would be for the poorest of parents that couldn't afford tuition fees.

I see 2 issues with this approach:

Firstly, as you mention this system would be for the poorest of parents. Parents in lower socio-economic areas are typically less educated themselves and many are indeed illerate and don't value education highly themselves. Therefore how are they going to be able to teach their children at a level that comes anywhere near approaching that of private schools?

Secondly, even if the parents were able to teach to this standard, it would take a long time to prove this...in the meantime there could be thousands of children left behind.

Suryavarman wrote: »

To go back to your example of 20 students and 2 teachers. Who says we need 2 teachers? Even with 1 teacher for 20 students, class sizes are smaller than what we already have.

Teaching a class containing 5-12 year olds at primary school or a class containing 13-18 year olds at secondary using only 1 teacher would, IMO, be impossible if good grades were a priority...the requirements are just too large. A 5 year old child needs nurture and being taught how to write and make sentences, the 12 year old needs to be taught maths, geography and history. Way too much for 1 teacher. Same would apply to a secondary school...the 13 year old would be learning French for the first time, whilst the 18 year old next to him would need to cover 5-7 honours subjects at LC level....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Loire

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And those with egos

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is a big bugbear of mine.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Perhaps that was because in the past, we were an agricultural country when the work was a lot more labour intensive. IMO, if most of the services that are currently provided by the state were stopped, then we would see an exodus to the urban areas. Not saying this is a bad thing either...in fact I think it would be a positive if anything (on a macro scale).

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's interesting alright and hadn't thought of that. The advent of the internet would also help here....2teachers might come together to teach say English & Maths and then other subjects could be taught online. The kids are still in the classroom and the 2 teachers could ensure that the children were paying attention and doing their homework....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Loire

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's a shocking report and really goes to show how poor a return we as taxpayers are getting.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Philanthropy here is obviously providing real benefit to the children of these schools, but I'm not sure if there would be enough philanthropy to cover all the rural Ireland schools, neither do I think it would be a good idea to depend on philanthropy for out education.

Permabear wrote: »

The private sector has a huge incentive to invest in educational endeavors such as this, so as to ensure a ready supply of well-educated employees in the future. It's already the case in Ireland that many high-tech jobs are going unfilled because the government-run education system is not producing graduates capable of filling them.

There's a conundrum here though...Whilst the private sector, on a whole, does have a huge incentive to invest in educational endeavors such as this, very few individual companies would, IMO, do so.

Loire

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I fundamentally think this is going to be the case...particularly regarding leaving cert grinds/exam topics. Kids in a particular area know only too well who the best teachers are....nothing stopping Mrs Best-in-Maths in Dublin from delivering on-line sessions at the weekends. Kids pay to enrole and specific sessions are delivered....

Suryavarman

Loire wrote: »

Hi Suryavarman.

I think, and I may be wrong, that the vast majority of Irish people would have a big problem with this in principal: A first world country relying on charity to provide education for some of it's citizens.

Ask people is better to rely on Government for a one size fits all system that performs poorly to provide for the vast majority of students or a private system with a huge range of choice for parents with a charity component for a small minority of families that easily outperforms the Government system. I think if you put the question like that then we'll find a huge amount of support for a libertarian system of education.

I see 2 issues with this approach:

Firstly, as you mention this system would be for the poorest of parents. Parents in lower socio-economic areas are typically less educated themselves and many are indeed illerate and don't value education highly themselves. Therefore how are they going to be able to teach their children at a level that comes anywhere near approaching that of private schools?

The reason these people are illiterate is because of shoddy Government schools. A first step in moving toward the system I outlined is to bring in school vouchers for one generation of children so that they can go to top quality private schools and become literate. Then the students will be literate and be able to home school their children.And I also don't believe for a second that anything more than a small minority of poor parents don't value education.

Secondly, even if the parents were able to teach to this standard, it would take a long time to prove this...in the meantime there could be thousands of children left behind.

There is a whole host of data to support this system. Whether it's private schools catering to the poorest people in third world countries or homeschooling in the first world they continually outperform public schools at a lower cost. Even if there is a few thousand children left behind, we currently have tens of thousands of children being left behind in our public schools at a huge cost. The way I see it, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by going with a private system.

Teaching a class containing 5-12 year olds at primary school or a class containing 13-18 year olds at secondary using only 1 teacher would, IMO, be impossible if good grades were a priority...the requirements are just too large. A 5 year old child needs nurture and being taught how to write and make sentences, the 12 year old needs to be taught maths, geography and history. Way too much for 1 teacher. Same would apply to a secondary school...the 13 year old would be learning French for the first time, whilst the 18 year old next to him would need to cover 5-7 honours subjects at LC level....

You better tell that to the homeschooling parents that are generally teaching a few children all of different ages.

Your argument here isn't making any sense either. Children are often told to work alone in class as the teacher goes around and helps individual students. In this scenario the teacher would have more time to allot to each student as the class sizes would be much smaller. Older students are far more able to work alone also, so there is more time again to allot to younger students. As has already been outlined the Khan Academy allows children to learn on their own and then the teacher can help the kids with problems.

Under this system I would hope that something as outdated as the Leaving Certificate would disappear. All this does is encourage teachers to teach the test, instead of teaching the subject. This inevitably leads to boring classes which turns children off learning and creates a disdain for education as adults.

benway

So far so softball. Let's make this a little interesting, shall we?

Firstly, there would be no right to education per se in a libertarian society?

Secondly, given the limited market-based logic that libertarians seem to apply, how could you ensure that all subjects are made available to all students, even where demand is weak?

Thirdly, will there not be a rational tendency on the part of Principals / CEOs to drop the most expensive subjects - chemistry, engineering, etc? Or to apply surcharges?

Amalgamated/specialist schools are well and good, but surely a situation where students have to choose between either taking whatever subjects are unavailable in their local school or travelling for extended periods, particularly in rural areas.

Finally, for now, although I can see how online learning will rise to supplement face-to-face methods, I can't see it supplanting the classroom outright. There's still the question of subjects involving a substantial practical element, and more importantly the key social role of schools in communities.

Is it not fair to surmise that, as much as people will pay for teaching standards, there will also be a pecking order of institutions, judged not so much by what they teach, but what they charged. Would this not foreseeably serve to lock in class inequalities from a very early age, and to perpetuate them through the generations?

Or are class inequalities even an issue?

KyussBishop

Have not researched the topic of private education enough to provide a rounded opinion on it, but private education often does provide better quality of education.

By some basic stats I've seen though, there are a limited number of countries where it has seen dominant adoption, so seems like there may be limited data; particularly, a lot of information I can find seems to deal with private schools in developing countries (with abysmal public education), though I do not see quite as much research relating to developed countries.

What do people make of private education in Indonesia? It is fairly prevalent there I think, but quality seems to vary:
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/world/asia/22iht-educLede22.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Does anyone know offhand, countries with dominantly private education, for the sake of research? (not publicly subsidized)

It is interesting that in India, private schools appear to have to work as non-profits:

But the private sector faces problems from bossy bureaucrats, especially in India. It is illegal there to operate a school for profit, so schools that charge fees must act as charities first and businesses second.

http://www.economist.com/node/21550251

Suryavarman

benway wrote: »

So far so softball. Let's make this a little interesting, shall we?

Firstly, there would be no right to education per se in a libertarian society?

No.

Secondly, given the limited market-based logic that libertarians seem to apply, how could you ensure that all subjects are made available to all students, even where demand is weak?

Why do we need to ensure that all subjects are available? There is no reason to assume that demand will remain weak in a free market. Schools could try different teaching methods or have different subject matter in order to increase demand for those subjects.

Thirdly, will there not be a rational tendency on the part of Principals / CEOs to drop the most expensive subjects - chemistry, engineering, etc? Or to apply surcharges?

There could be but there will also be an incentive to subsidise those subjects in order to attract more students to a school.

Finally, for now, although I can see how online learning will rise to supplement face-to-face methods, I can't see it supplanting the classroom outright. There's still the question of subjects involving a substantial practical element, and more importantly the key social role of schools in communities.

I don't see any reason why the traditional classroom can't be supplanted. Technology can radically lower the cost of education without decreasing quality.

There's also no reason why the social role of schools can't be replaced by something else.

Is it not fair to surmise that, as much as people will pay for teaching standards, there will also be a pecking order of institutions, judged not so much by what they teach, but what they charged. Would this not foreseeably serve to lock in class inequalities from a very early age, and to perpetuate them through the generations?

The system we have now where children from working class families are locked into under performing public schools while high quality private schools are only available for the wealthy, creates class inequalities. In a free market high quality, low cost private schools will have an opportunity start offering their services instead of being crowded out by public schools.

Or are class inequalities even an issue?

Inequality is low on my list of priorities anyway.

karma_

The libertarian answer to anything appears to be - "sure let it be run privately for profit."

KyussBishop

Suryavarman wrote:

I don't see any reason why the traditional classroom can't be supplanted. Technology can radically lower the cost of education without decreasing quality.

There's also no reason why the social role of schools can't be replaced by something else.

While I agree with this, and think it's going to supplant much of traditional schooling in the future, it's something that needs to be researched more widely first before it could be adopted generally.

Online learning, while taking significant strides at the moment, is still relatively new and needs a bit of time to be proven and have its teaching methods refined, and drawbacks noted and worked on.

benway

Suryavarman wrote: »

No.

This is a major problem. Clearly, without a right to education, there's a danger of a whole class of children going to work as soon as they attain the capacity to contract, or working in the home, which will be nigh-on impossible to police, given the libertarian aversion to incursions on private property.

Thankfully, the fact that child labour is inefficient in the long run has been conceded on another thread, so I don't need to get in to it again. The thrust of it was that these uneducated child labourers are likely to stay at work in menial trades for their whole lives, as are their children.

Is it a thing that childrens' start in life is to be solely determined by who their parents are, rather than their own ability and motivation?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Why do we need to ensure that all subjects are available? There is no reason to assume that demand will remain weak in a free market. Schools could try different teaching methods or have different subject matter in order to increase demand for those subjects.

It again, relates to the right to education, which you deny, the desirability of a rounded, balanced education, and the desirability of facilitating every child in finding his or her niche.

Suryavarman wrote: »

There could be but there will also be an incentive to subsidise those subjects in order to attract more students to a school.

I don't see that there would be any incentive to do so, sorry. I could see that there would be specific technical and "grammar school" type divisions, which I think is a bad thing - more choice for each individual is a worthy aim, right? Especially in something as fundamental to future prospects as education?

Suryavarman wrote: »

I don't see any reason why the traditional classroom can't be supplanted. Technology can radically lower the cost of education without decreasing quality.

There's also no reason why the social role of schools can't be replaced by something else.

We need standardised examinations, though, for reasons I will set out below. Schools have the resources to provide education for children whose parents could not - either through lacking the skills, or the time ... or the will.

Jesus, without (relatively) expert direction, a generation of kids could come up believing the gospel of David Icke ... or Ayn Rand.

Suryavarman wrote: »

The system we have now where children from working class families are locked into under performing public schools while high quality private schools are only available for the wealthy, creates class inequalities. In a free market high quality, low cost private schools will have an opportunity start offering their services instead of being crowded out by public schools.

Firstly, there's a "private sector gooooooood, public sector baaaaaaaad" type bias to that comment. My VEC school enabled me to gain access to a well regarded university course, as did a couple, not many, of my classmates.

Of course, one thing that's often overlooked in the analysis is that there aren't that many underprivileged children paying €17k per year for the likes of Clongowes, they're virtually all in state schools, if they're at school at all.

Their experiences before they even start school have a massive bearing on their future educational attainments, that needs to be borne in mind before slating non-private schools. Of course, there is that pesky mantra of Public Sector Inefficiency™ that we need to get past.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Inequality is low on my list of priorities anyway.

No sh!t. But libertarians do like to bang on about how the most creative, the hardest working, the smartest, etc., rise to the top. You like to portray yourselves as espousing meritocratic principles.

But it seems clear to me that a stratified system, as I imagine the kind of system you're sketching would end up, would be one where the size of mammy and daddy's wallet will determine where junior ends up in society - it's already the case, but at least things like public schooling and standardised exams serve to level the playing field to some degree. You'd like to do away with those as well?

The logical conclusion of a private schooling system, combined with the lack of a right to education, is that educational status will become a function of wealth, rather than ability. The bright kid in the charity school isn't likely to take a PhD, is he/she? He might end up becoming an accomplished criminal, though.

Meanwhile less able, but more solvent, students will wend their way through college while the brighter kids are forced out - the luxury of not having to work while studying is a huge advantage. It reminds me of a joke my dad told me, "I must have the best doctor in town, sure didn't it take him 15 years to finish his degree".

This was how things were pre "free" third-level education in this country. I deal with people from both eras in my line of work, and it's easy to tell the difference.

Plus, there's likely to be a price hierarchy for desirable degrees as well, it will probably come to a situation where there are many less able doctors than technicians.

Or are universities going to open a charity wing, also? I don't like the idea of these kids having to rely on scholarships, either, it depends upon the caprice of the donor, so criteria other than ability may apply.

It's all supply-side logic, isn't it?

Suryavarman

karma_ wrote: »

The libertarian answer to anything appears to be - "sure let it be run privately for profit."

Even though we mentioned repeatedly in this thread that charities will probably play a large role in the provision of education under a libertarian system. Anything constructive to add?

KyussBishop wrote: »

While I agree with this, and think it's going to supplant much of traditional schooling in the future, it's something that needs to be researched more widely first before it could be adopted generally.

Online learning, while taking significant strides at the moment, is still relatively new and needs a bit of time to be proven and have its teaching methods refined, and drawbacks noted and worked on.

The only way these drawbacks can be found is by testing online education. I personally think the best way to do that is with a free market for education.

benway wrote: »

This is a major problem. Clearly, without a right to education, there's a danger of a whole class of children going to work as soon as they attain the capacity to contract, or working in the home, which will be nigh-on impossible to police, given the libertarian aversion to incursions on private property.

Thankfully, the fact that child labour is inefficient in the long run has been conceded on another thread, so I don't need to get in to it again. The thrust of it was that these uneducated child labourers are likely to stay at work in menial trades for their whole lives, as are their children.

Is it a thing that childrens' start in life is to be solely determined by who their parents are, rather than their own ability and motivation?

Eh, you seem to be missing the fact we are a first world nation. So no, there isn't the slightest chance of a whole class of children ending up in work as soon as they are capable of doing so. As Permabear has already pointed out some of the poorest parents in India are selecting to pay for their children to go to school instead of sending them to "free" schools. This is in spite of the governments best attempts to muscle these private schools out of the market. Is too much to believe that a country as rich as Ireland can do a better job than India?

To add to that, E.G. West mentions in Education and The State that schools for working class children in Leeds in 1869 got only 32% of their funding from taxation (taxation that was highly regressive at that, with three fifths of tax revenue coming from food and tobacco) whereas 48% of the funding came from the parents themselves. It can be estimated that of those children, 93% of them were literate upon leaving school. I think it's fair to say that your claims of entire classes of children going to work as soon as possible are baseless.

The destiny of a child's life is already influenced massively by their parents. I don't see how we can change that without taking children away from their parents after birth. Most of the evidence seems to indicate that private education and homeschooling gives children are far better chance of reaching their potential than the Government system. If parents were paying for their kids education, it is likely that they would take a far greater interest in their child's education which would undoubtedly motivate the child.

It again, relates to the right to education, which you deny, the desirability of a rounded, balanced education, and the desirability of facilitating every child in finding his or her niche.

There is no reason that children couldn't just be taught the theory behind the subject if the school couldn't afford the technical equipment.

I don't see that there would be any incentive to do so, sorry. I could see that there would be specific technical and "grammar school" type divisions, which I think is a bad thing - more choice for each individual is a worthy aim, right? Especially in something as fundamental to future prospects as education?

If you can't see that there would be an incentive then you should read what I wrote again.

You first mention that different types of schools would arise and say that would be a bad thing. You then point out that more choice is good. Cognitive dissonance much?

Yes, choice is vitally important in something like education. Something we don't get now. If I were to walk into a random selection of classes all across the country, I would undoubtedly see the same teaching methods being used to teach the exact same subject material taught from the same textbooks. The only difference is some classes might be taught in Irish. That isn't choice. Choice is when children have the option to go to a whole host of schools using different teaching methods to approach subjects differently, which is what would happen in a free market.

We need standardised examinations, though, for reasons I will set out below. Schools have the resources to provide education for children whose parents could not - either through lacking the skills, or the time ... or the will.

And if parents don't have the time, skill or will then they can send their children to school instead.

Jesus, without (relatively) expert direction, a generation of kids could come up believing the gospel of David Icke ... or Ayn Rand.

Plenty of people already do so. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It sounds better than having generations of children being brought up by the gospel of whatever a bunch of faceless civil servants in Dublin dreamed up.

Firstly, there's a "private sector gooooooood, public sector baaaaaaaad" type bias to that comment. My VEC school enabled me to gain access to a well regarded university course, as did a couple, not many, of my classmates.

The data seems to back up my position that the private sector is good while the public sector isn't.

There's no reason that a private school couldn't have enabled more of your classmates to go to university. You're going to need more than anecdotal evidence to make a case for public schooling.

Of course, one thing that's often overlooked in the analysis is that there aren't that many underprivileged children paying €17k per year for the likes of Clongowes, they're virtually all in state schools, if they're at school at all.

They are virtually all in state schools because private schools have been crowded out of the market.

Their experiences before they even start school have a massive bearing on their future educational attainments, that needs to be borne in mind before slating non-private schools. Of course, there is that pesky mantra of Public Sector Inefficiency™ that we need to get past.

I'm not arguing that experiences before school don't have an impact. That isn't an argument on behalf of public schools though.

The public sector is inefficient. That is an indisputable fact.

No sh!t. But libertarians do like to bang on about how the most creative, the hardest working, the smartest, etc., rise to the top. You like to portray yourselves as espousing meritocratic principles.

They do rise to the top, that doesn't mean I have to care about inequality though.

But it seems clear to me that a stratified system, as I imagine the kind of system you're sketching would end up, would be one where the size of mammy and daddy's wallet will determine where junior ends up in society - it's already the case, but at least things like public schooling and standardised exams serve to level the playing field to some degree. You'd like to do away with those as well?

Public schooling and standardised testing do nothing to improve the situation. They do inhibit innovation and lead to the same bog standard teaching methods being used by every teacher. I would love for both things to cease to exist.

The logical conclusion of a private schooling system, combined with the lack of a right to education, is that educational status will become a function of wealth, rather than ability. The bright kid in the charity school isn't likely to take a PhD, is he/she? He might end up becoming an accomplished criminal, though.

No it isn't the logical conclusion. There's plenty of reason to believe that charity can help the most disadvantaged.

No the child isn't likely take a PHD. Either are most children because it's generally a waste of time unless you really love the subject you are learning. Your references to the child becoming a criminal are both pathetic and insulting. Anymore tripe like that and I don't see how a civilised discussion can continue.

Meanwhile less able, but more solvent, students will wend their way through college while the brighter kids are forced out - the luxury of not having to work while studying is a huge advantage. It reminds me of a joke my dad told me, "I must have the best doctor in town, sure didn't it take him 15 years to finish his degree".

Not having to work while studying is an advantage. There's no reason why somebody couldn't take a year or two out before college and save up for college so they don't have to work during college. Even if they do have to work during college time there's no reason they can't still perform to a high level.

This was how things were pre "free" third-level education in this country. I deal with people from both eras in my line of work, and it's easy to tell the difference.

Is it really easy to tell the difference? Because the introduction of "free fees" didn't have any impact on the level of working class children attending college. They did result in an underfunded college system though.

Plus, there's likely to be a price hierarchy for desirable degrees as well, it will probably come to a situation where there are many less able doctors than technicians.

Or are universities going to open a charity wing, also? I don't like the idea of these kids having to rely on scholarships, either, it depends upon the caprice of the donor, so criteria other than ability may apply.

It's all supply-side logic, isn't it?

Private universities in America are offering free tuition to students that couldn't afford it. According to Wikipedia a large number of private colleges are need-blind including all the Ivy League colleges. At Harvard for example, parents with an income below $65,000 don't have to pay a penny for their child's tuition and parents with incomes from $65,000-$150,000 only have to pay up to 10% of their income in tuition. This is all despite the Federal Government carelessly throwing money at third level institutions.

Also I didn't ask whether you liked the idea of scholarships. Mainly because I couldn't care less whether you like the idea. They're a pretty good way of allowing children to attend top quality universities without the decline in the quality of the education that Government involvement would inevitably lead to.

KyussBishop

Suryavarman wrote:

The only way these drawbacks can be found is by testing online education. I personally think the best way to do that is with a free market for education.

Okey, I'd agree with this insofar as private online education for now; that seems the perfect platform for testing it out (whilst keeping public alongside it until it hits its prime), and if it proves both cost effective (as I'd imagine it would be) and academically effective, it should quickly usurp public educational institutes (in their current form).

If things progress that way, you might not need to dismantle public education, it may disappear in the transition to online learning.

Suryavarman wrote:

As Permabear has already pointed out some of the poorest parents in India are selecting to pay for their children to go to school instead of sending them to "free" schools.

Ya but in other places with substantial private schooling, such as Indonesia, it is a lot more mixed. India's public education appears to be abysmal compared to most countries, so it's a bit of an unbalanced test case.

Suryavarman wrote:

The data seems to back up my position that the private sector is good while the public sector isn't.

Well, the data is mixed; is there a case where private education has been tried as the dominant source of education in a country?

From what I can tell, most countries seem to have a mixed public/semi-private system, with not a great deal of countries with full-on private schools; I'd be interested in finding more data on countries with mostly-private schools.
If there isn't or hasn't been a country like that in recent times, it may significantly impact the argument for a private-only system due to lack of raw data backing it, and the potential for unforeseen consequences.

Suryavarman

KyussBishop wrote: »

Okey, I'd agree with this insofar as private online education for now; that seems the perfect platform for testing it out (whilst keeping public alongside it until it hits its prime), and if it proves both cost effective (as I'd imagine it would be) and academically effective, it should quickly usurp public educational institutes (in their current form).

If things progress that way, you might not need to dismantle public education, it may disappear in the transition to online learning.

If that state continues to provide public schools then online learning won't catch on. The only way it will catch on is by using the software in a traditional classroom with the teacher giving help to students to need it. The only schools that will be able to try will be able to try it will be private schools but the affordable ones are being crowded out by state schools. This online education will also need to be tailored specifically tailored towards Irish schools in order to teach the Leaving Certificate syllabus which will lead to higher costs. If the state continues to have such a heavy hand in education it will be impossible for online education to get a foothold because innovation is impossible under bureaucratic management structures.

There is plenty of reasons to dismantle the public education system. The main one being there is absolutely no need for it. If poor families can't afford to send their kids to school then the state should give them school vouchers. There is absolutely no need for the Government to be running schools.

Ya but in other places with substantial private schooling, such as Indonesia, it is a lot more mixed. India's public education appears to be abysmal compared to most countries, so it's a bit of an unbalanced test case.

As far as I'm aware the article on Indonesia referred only to third level education. The article does point out that although the public institutes can perform better than some of the private institutions, a lot of the private ones are cheaper. If the public institutes were closed down, then maybe more high quality private colleges would open up to fill the gap. With 68% of students opting to go to private institutes, they must be doing something right. The article even states that without the private institutes many students wouldn't have been able to go to college. Needless to say though the Government is beginning a war on these private institutions.

As for India, the private schools have to deliver their services to extremely poor families whilst the Government is doing it's best to close them down. If the odds weren't stacked so highly against them, then they would have a much better chance of succeeding. It says a lot about what they are doing when they can sell their product to some of the poorest people on the planet when their competitor is trying to give it away.

Well, the data is mixed; is there a case where private education has been tried as the dominant source of education in a country?

No because Governments all over the world have made it their goal to force private providers out of the market. The best examples are countries during the 19th century and some third world countries today.

From what I can tell, most countries seem to have a mixed public/semi-private system, with not a great deal of countries with full-on private schools; I'd be interested in finding more data on countries with mostly-private schools.
If there isn't or hasn't been a country like that in recent times, it may significantly impact the argument for a private-only system due to lack of raw data backing it, and the potential for unforeseen consequences.

The abysmal state of our public education system and the way private schools have succeeded in the Third World is a pretty strong argument in favour of privatisation.

If you want to know a bit more about the private provision of education then have a look at the video below. It's a ted talk about private education in a few different third world countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzv4nBoXoZc

Kinski

Suryavarman wrote: »

The abysmal state of our public education system and the way private schools have succeeded in the Third World is a pretty strong argument in favour of privatisation.

But why look to Indian hedgeschools when we can look to the example of our EU partner Finland, which performs superbly in PISA rankings in areas like literacy and mathematics? This article argues that an emphasis on equality of opportunity has been a key aspect of its success.

I find free-marketeers hostility to public education pretty bizarre; are we really supposed to accept that state provision of education has been one of the great evils of the past century?

KyussBishop

Suryavarman wrote:

If that state continues to provide public schools then online learning won't catch on. The only way it will catch on is by using the software in a traditional classroom with the teacher giving help to students to need it. The only schools that will be able to try will be able to try it will be private schools but the affordable ones are being crowded out by state schools. This online education will also need to be tailored specifically tailored towards Irish schools in order to teach the Leaving Certificate syllabus which will lead to higher costs. If the state continues to have such a heavy hand in education it will be impossible for online education to get a foothold because innovation is impossible under bureaucratic management structures.

Well, online learning isn't proven yet, so you can't adopt it on a wide scale until the various methods of online learning are refined and shown to be ready for wide-scale adoption.
A small number of private schools or research institute trials doing this at first, is the best method for proving its efficacy; while it's very promising, it has some way to go yet.

Once this method of teaching reaches its prime, I don't see why public schools would be an obstacle to it.

Also, I don't think these online teaching methods need to be based on the Leaving Cert; there are a fair number of alternative education syllabi, so I don't see why one can't be introduced for generalized online learning courses.
This makes the most sense, as you wouldn't need to pick a school here in Ireland providing the online education, you could pick from the best quality private institutes from anywhere in the world; that seems to be the logical long-term conclusion of this technology.

In fact, I see it becoming quite likely that whole courses may become free altogether over time; at the start, institutes will copyright their courses and charge fees, but over time, completely free (or 'open sourced', with a support business model for profit) courses will become the future of education I think.

Suryavarman wrote:

There is plenty of reasons to dismantle the public education system. The main one being there is absolutely no need for it. If poor families can't afford to send their kids to school then the state should give them school vouchers. There is absolutely no need for the Government to be running schools.

Well, a private-education-only system hasn't been tried anytime recently, and the primary data in support of it appears to be from developing countries with abysmally poor public education (in no way comparable to most developed countries).

Maybe private education is the better option, but it needs more data to back it up; I'm all for greater research of its efficacy and cost effectiveness as an alternative system, perhaps even an internationally-monitored test case of a complete switch over to private education in a country which may benefit from it.
To commit to a wide-scale adoption right now though, when on the brink of a complete redefinition of education due to online learning, and without a good test-case for all-private education, seems very risky.

Suryavarman wrote:

As far as I'm aware the article on Indonesia referred only to third level education. The article does point out that although the public institutes can perform better than some of the private institutions, a lot of the private ones are cheaper. If the public institutes were closed down, then maybe more high quality private colleges would open up to fill the gap. With 68% of students opting to go to private institutes, they must be doing something right. The article even states that without the private institutes many students wouldn't have been able to go to college. Needless to say though the Government is beginning a war on these private institutions.

Oops, right you are; didn't look at that carefully enough. It's hard to find data on the primary/secondary education in Indonesia.

It seems that much of the 68% going to private institutions do so, as you say, because they don't have the opportunity of going to public colleges; I don't see how the government is beginning a war with these institutions.

Suryavarman wrote:

As for India, the private schools have to deliver their services to extremely poor families whilst the Government is doing it's best to close them down. If the odds weren't stacked so highly against them, then they would have a much better chance of succeeding. It says a lot about what they are doing when they can sell their product to some of the poorest people on the planet when their competitor is trying to give it away.

Ya but my point was that in India, the public system is so abysmally bad (and not comparable to most developed countries), that it's an unbalanced test case for private education compared to the rest of the world.

Suryavarman wrote:

No because Governments all over the world have made it their goal to force private providers out of the market. The best examples are countries during the 19th century and some third world countries today.

That's not true though? If you claim that governments do that, can you provide some examples or evidence? If this has not been occuring in most developed nations for over a century (not saying that's the case, just need examples), it doesn't seem to hold true.

Quite a lot of developed nations have a significant amount of subsidized private education as well, particularly in Europe (much of it here in Ireland too).

Suryavarman wrote:

If you want to know a bit more about the private provision of education then have a look at the video below. It's a ted talk about private education in a few different third world countries.

Interesting video; cheers.

benway

Suryavarman wrote: »

Your references to the child becoming a criminal are both pathetic and insulting. Anymore tripe like that and I don't see how a civilised discussion can continue.

I missed this the first time around. I have a postgrad in criminology, one of the canonical theories is Robert K. Merton's development of Durkheim's theory of anomie, which, simply put, posits that where legitimate opportunities for advancement are closed off, children tend to become alienated from the mainstream and pursue illegitimate avenues, particularly crime. It's a social capital type argument, developed in Messner and Rosenfeld's "Crime and the American Dream". Chapter length overview on google books. Please don't be so dismissive.

Suryavarman wrote: »

So no, there isn't the slightest chance of a whole class of children ending up in work as soon as they are capable of doing so.

Slightly naïve view, imho, but we'll park that for the moment. Just a couple of brief responses, don't propose to get into a line by line right at the moment.

Suryavarman wrote: »

The destiny of a child's life is already influenced massively by their parents.

And this will only be made worse by removing all childrens' right to education.

Suryavarman wrote: »

There is no reason that children couldn't just be taught the theory behind the subject if the school couldn't afford the technical equipment.

Two tier system, in short? It's been shown that market orientated reforms in England and Wales exacerbated this problem in the late 80s to early nineties. It's also been shown that access to higher education is the key determinant of social mobility. Bit like the rarefied world of private healthcare? Poorer kids are left to imagine how, say, two chemicals would react together, while rich kids get the full experience.

Suryavarman wrote: »

You first mention that different types of schools would arise and say that would be a bad thing. You then point out that more choice is good. Cognitive dissonance much?

Not getting it here, my worry is that there would be a system of education for professional classes, charging accordingly, a system for lower-middle class, upper working-class technicians, charging accordingly, etc. A caste system, in other words, where your parents' position in life determines yours.

Choice of all subjects, for every child is the goal, rather than a reduced set from an early age.

Which leads me to another key question - what is education for?

In practical terms, another issue that arises is that doing away with the public schooling sector would involve persuading the Irish public to do away with the nasty, market distorting, totalitarian Article 42 of the Constitution, how would you propose to do this? What exactly is so horribly wrong with this model that it should be disposed of, wholesale:

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.

Eliot Rosewater

Kinski wrote: »

I find free-marketeers hostility to public education pretty bizarre; are we really supposed to accept that state provision of education has been one of the great evils of the past century?

Something doesn't need to a "great evil" for one to propose alternatives. This kind of rhetoric only makes the debate more fractured and hostile. Tellingly it has emerged after benway weighed in with his "so far so soft ball" comment - because everything on the Political Theory forum is just another battle in the "libertarian war", I suppose. :rolleyes:


I think that the primary benefit of more private education would be increased choice and, ultimately, quality for those parents who wanted it. In a centralized school system informed parents must merely stand aside as teachers waste their children's time on subjects like Irish and Religion - subjects that exist only to satisfy vested interests. Other subjects are then cast in an inflexible one-size-fits-all mode. Anyone who has strong ideas about how things should be improved can't act on them at all. As a mathematician I have a lot of ideas about how leaving certificate maths could be improved, especially through the inclusion of maths that is actually (gasp!) interesting and fun, but in a centralized school system I'd be wasting my time trying to actually implement that.

It would be nice to investigate fully the possibility of setting up an alternative curriculum in Ireland today. It would be a lot of work, particularly ensuring the subsequent certificates are recognized...

RichieC

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

because everything on the Political Theory forum is just another battle in the "libertarian war", I suppose. :rolleyes:

Since it's pretty much the only thing ever debated on this forum that doesn't surprise me.

Jimoslimos

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Something doesn't need to a "great evil" for one to propose alternatives. This kind of rhetoric only makes the debate more fractured and hostile.

Sometimes it is easier to fix the flaws rather than abandoning it for an untried system.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think that the primary benefit of more private education would be increased choice and, ultimately, quality for those parents who wanted it.

Ah, this misnomer again, the idea that abandoning public education would mean an abundance of choice popping up on every corner.

Lets look at this in an Irish educational context, if public spending was removed who do you think would take up the vast control of the countries schools? The Catholic Church have the legacy, wealth and indeed still an existing level of control in the majority of schools in this country.

Now imagine I'm a non-Catholic, (Protestant, Jew, Atheist, whatever) living in a small predominately Catholic town in rural Ireland - only school is controlled by the Church and there is no incentive for any other private education provider to set up given the small numbers. It has been quite a while since I studied Economics (badly), but I imagine economies of scale would play a part here.
So my only options are to a) spend more and travel elsewhere, b) move to an area with a higher non-catholic population (ghettoisation anybody - Godwin's law invoked!) or c) become a Catholic.

So how would Libertarians (or even would they?) propose to deal with this scenario? Interference in the market to make it more attractive for alternative providers? Naughty naughty!

Of course what I'd prefer to see would be a secular education system - that way a lot of the Catholic/Protestant/ET schools could be amalgamated, especially in areas where there aren't the numbers for several faith based schools. Faith-teaching to be done outside of school hours in the home/church where it belongs.

Eliot Rosewater

RichieC wrote: »

Since it's pretty much the only thing ever debated on this forum that doesn't surprise me.

You've missed my point. I'm not referring to the fact that libertarianism is discussed; I'm referring to the fact that its discussion is treated as a trench war. This thread was nice and relaxed until benway weighed in making it clear with his "so far so softball" comment that his contributions were motivated by scoring points in the war rather than debating the issues. This is, unfortunately, the norm on the forum.

Eliot Rosewater

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Ah, this misnomer again, the idea that abandoning public education would mean an abundance of choice popping up on every corner.

I haven't claimed that "an abundance of choice" would appear; I have merely claimed that some choice would appear, and that that would be good.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

So how would Libertarians (or even would they?) propose to deal with this scenario? Interference in the market to make it more attractive for alternative providers? Naughty naughty!

Look at it another way: what you're effectively demanding is that the ethos of the existing schools in this rural town be changed, or that the government establish a special school for your children. Either way you want the resources of others used to suit your outlook. This is hardly fair on anyone (except you). If you want lots of school choice then you should move to the city. If you want to live in the country then you must accept that that has some key disadvantages, and live with them. Demanding that the money of other be used to accommodate your lifestyle is, in my opinion, grossly unfair.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Of course what I'd prefer to see would be a secular education system - that way a lot of the Catholic/Protestant/ET schools could be amalgamated, especially in areas where there aren't the numbers for several faith based schools. Faith-teaching to be done outside of school hours in the home/church where it belongs.

In your opinion it belongs at home. I personally think that schooling should be broad and should, amongst other things, provide children with ethics and a way of evaluating right and wrong. Some people believe that should include religion. I disagree, but I respectfully disagree, and wouldn't presume to deny them what they consider the proper way of bringing up their children.

Jimoslimos

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Look at it another way: what you're effectively demanding is that the ethos of the existing schools in this rural town be changed, or that the government establish a special school for your children. Either way you want the resources of others used to suit your outlook. This is hardly fair on anyone (except you).

No, you're not seeing my point, I disagree with the organisation/funding of schools at the moment - that doesn't mean privatisation is the answer. If I choose to move to an area that has 1 school, Catholic, I can still send my kids there, requesting they are excluded form religious instruction. Under a Libertarian system that Catholic school would have the right to refuse my child based on their religion.

And yes, I am demanding that the 'ethos' of current schools, especially state-funded, is changed. Ethos, is the buzz-word used to shoehorn unnecessary religious indoctrination into school.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If you want lots of school choice then you should move to the city. If you want to live in the country then you must accept that that has some key disadvantages, and live with them. Demanding that the money of other be used to accommodate your lifestyle is, in my opinion, grossly unfair.

I understand that living in a rural area should mean that there will be certain advantages/disadvantages. However there is a balance to be struck between the oversupply of economically unfeasible schools to different faiths in rural locations and a limitation only to high-density areas.

Eliot Rosewater

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No, you're not seeing my point, I disagree with the organisation/funding of schools at the moment - that doesn't mean privatisation is the answer. If I choose to move to an area that has 1 school, Catholic, I can still send my kids there, requesting they are excluded form religious instruction. Under a Libertarian system that Catholic school would have the right to refuse my child based on their religion.

I suppose that that's true. However in the context of modern Ireland I can't see that happening all that much. What's preventing it from happening now? Catholic schools might be officially obliged to accept non-Catholics, but schools can choose some students other others and that could be used as a system of elimination.

In terms of accessibly, it's probably the case the schools would stratify according to ability. The question is if this can be achieved so that the high-performing students can reach their potential while low-performing students still have a chance of a good education.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

And yes, I am demanding that the 'ethos' of current schools, especially state-funded, is changed. Ethos, is the buzz-word used to shoehorn unnecessary religious indoctrination into school.

Given your use of terminology here it's clear that your ideas about religion are coloring your view. Why is it your problem if other parents wish their children to have religious instruction in their school?

I disagree with my (hypothetical) children being given religious instruction because I do not believe that it provides a sound way of giving children necessary ethical and moral views or the means of determining those views. Still, I fail to see why a blanket ban should be put on parents who see religion as a key element of their moral and ethical life.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I understand that living in a rural area should mean that there will be certain advantages/disadvantages. However there is a balance to be struck between the oversupply of economically unfeasible schools to different faiths in rural locations and a limitation only to high-density areas.

But surely, in the context of a discussion about private schools, economic unfeasibility is irrelevant. If they are unfeasible then they won't survive.

benway

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You've missed my point. I'm not referring to the fact that libertarianism is discussed; I'm referring to the fact that its discussion is treated as a trench war. This thread was nice and relaxed until benway weighed in making it clear with his "so far so softball" comment that his contributions were motivated by scoring points in the war rather than debating the issues. This is, unfortunately, the norm on the forum.

Oh, come on. One throwaway comment out of three posts? And, yes, the first page was a little softball for my liking - there are serious issues with privatisation/libertarianization of education, to my mind, primarily around inequality and the right to education. And the basic purpose of education.

Don't see this as "point scoring", strange that you'd think of it that way. These are all genuine and serious questions, whether you want to address them or not.

Jimoslimos

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But surely, in the context of a discussion about private schools, economic unfeasibility is irrelevant. If they are unfeasible then they won't survive.

I'd argue that economics, whilst very important, isn't and shouldn't be the only factor in determining education policy.

benway

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'd argue that economics, whilst very important, isn't and shouldn't be the only factor in determining education policy.

I'd go further again - education is a right of every citizen, and a public good, economic "efficiency" is barely a consideration. Why exactly should that right be taken away, and the education sector turned over to blind "market dynamics"?

jumpguy

benway wrote: »

I'd go further again - education is a right of every citizen, and a public good, economic "efficiency" is barely a consideration. Why exactly should that right be taken away, and the education sector turned over to blind "market dynamics"?

Economic efficiency, however, would mean well-educated children for a reasonable cost. I don't necessarily agree that small, inevitably unprofitable rural schools should be shut down, this will only contribute to damaging rural decay. Perhaps they could be subsidised by the government to bring the proposed fees in line with those in more populated urban schools. A happy medium seems like the best way to go.

Kinski

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Something doesn't need to a "great evil" for one to propose alternatives. This kind of rhetoric only makes the debate more fractured and hostile. Tellingly it has emerged after benway weighed in with his "so far so soft ball" comment - because everything on the Political Theory forum is just another battle in the "libertarian war", I suppose. :rolleyes:

The "great evil" bit is just me exaggerating for rhetorical effect; nobody is going to imagine that I seriously think the average libertarian classes public provision of schools alongside Stalinist purges.

But I get the impression that those of an uninhibited free market persuasion are usually quite hostile to public education. It can't be simply described as "proposing alternatives" if the advocates of those alternatives are often found vigorously attacking the very principles underlying the current set-up, and holding up the latest league tables and the example of Indian hedgeschools as if they provide compelling reasons to dismantle the entire edifice (meanwhile the Finnish example is mostly ignored, except when it provides a convenient stick with which to beat Irish teachers over their pay and qualifications.)

I can understand someone being sensitive if they see some of their most deeply-held convictions being glibly dismissed, but you do have to try and see this from your opponents' perspectives too. The right to a basic education, provided by the state if needs be, is something many of us believe strongly in, and witnessing what I perceive as sustained ideological attacks on that right makes me, for one, deeply, deeply uncomfortable.

You think the debate is fractious and hostile? Of course it is, and in the broader context in which boards and similar sites operate it has always been so, since long before benway, myself, or any other poster on here waded in. That's how it goes when you're arguing for the abolishment of something so many hold so dear. It would be just the same in a thread where communists were arguing for the abolition of private property.

In a centralized school system informed parents must merely stand aside as teachers waste their children's time on subjects like Irish and Religion - subjects that exist only to satisfy vested interests.

I agree with you that a lot of students would benefit if they weren't compelled to study those two subjects, but you know as well as I do that there are historical reasons why they both enjoy the place the do on the typical schoolgoer's daily timetable. It isn't just about "vested interests"; and while I haven't seen any recent opinion polls on the topic, I'd be very surprised if there wasn't widespread support amongst the public for the retention of Irish as a compulsory subject, at least in some form.

Other subjects are then cast in an inflexible one-size-fits-all mode. Anyone who has strong ideas about how things should be improved can't act on them at all.

Seriously? You don't think there are people with "strong ideas" influencing the future direction of Irish education right now, including some with plenty of expertise and experience?

SupaNova

Kinski wrote: »

But I get the impression that those of an uninhibited free market persuasion are usually quite hostile to public education. It can't be simply described as "proposing alternatives" if the advocates of those alternatives are often found vigorously attacking the very principles underlying the current set-up, and holding up the latest league tables and the example of Indian hedgeschools as if they provide compelling reasons to dismantle the entire edifice (meanwhile the Finnish example is mostly ignored, except when it provides a convenient stick with which to beat Irish teachers over their pay and qualifications.)

I think the Indian example was brought up as a real life example that contradicts the claim that schooling would be unavailable to the poor in a private system, rather than justification for tearing the current system down.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

benway

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If the state sector is so bad, which I will be disputing, why don't you send your child to private schools, then? The option exists under the current arrangement, in case you've forgotten? As opposed to doing away with public education and the right to education wholesale?

Will deal further with the substance of that later, but I think it's a libertarian scheme rather than piecemeal privatisation that's under discussio - not the same thing. Slightly disingenuous to limit your position to the latter, as you appear to be doing.

Anyone care to address the right to education point?

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Do you think it would be politically easier to push through reforms, or to cut the whole system loose and let private education take over? If you want to cut the whole system loose, not only are you fighting all the lobby groups you mention (plus more), but also a huge number of the public.

You also have no fully developed template with which to implement private education, that has been proven successful; India's template, of a developing country with more than a billion people, and a hideously bad public education system, isn't in any way comparable to Ireland (I expanded on this more in an earlier post).

Your preference to speedily implement, an entirely experimental/untested education system with no comparable template, has (due to lack of past templates) an extremely high potential for damaging unforeseen consequences (we don't know if it will work, if it may remove some peoples ability to provide education, if it will be a monetary drain etc.), and that's not even getting into the wider issues of private education.

As I said way earlier in the thread, I'm all for an internationally administered test case of such a system e.g. in a small developing country that could benefit from it, hell maybe even a limited test case in a province here, so some data can be generated for research/a-template, but implementing it wholesale without some extremely well researched/examined template to back it up, is simply a bad idea.

Plus, we're possibly coming upon a fundamental change in education through varieties of online learning, and teaching material/curricula sourced online; if there will be a switch to private education, I think it is far more likely to happen gradually, through a variety of that. It all has yet to be proven with regards to technology/efficacy though.


I don't go into great detail in my arguments here, but that provides a general outline of why a wholesale switch is a bad idea (minus the more fundamental criticisms of private education).

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

an entirely experimental/untested education system

How could one "test" an entire education system in a specific country? Who tested the current system in its entirety before we implemented it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Pick a small country with a dilapidated/non-existent educational system (probably a fair number to pick from in Africa, although dunno about political stability), make an international effort to invest in setting up private education in said country, with international research and monitoring of it's efficacy/affordability etc.; if it's profitable and effective, it should pay for itself over time.

I know that's a slightly idealistic approach (and still doesn't apply it to developed countries, compared against public education), but there needs to be a test-case somewhere (even if just starting off in a province here), even if only on a limited basis, before you can roll something out countrywide; public education had much precedence before it was implemented here in Ireland.

Note that in general I'm far from sold on or supportive of private education, I'm just outlining some prerequisites before it could be properly considered (and at that, ignoring all of the other fundamental arguments against it).

Permabear wrote:

You seem to be imagining that libertarians would decide to roll out a National Libertarian Education Strategy according to some specific template — in other words, that we would imitate the centralized, top-down, one-size-fits-all approach adopted by state bureaucrats.

That's not it at all; I imagine, if private education is to be implemented, there must be a comparable precedent i.e. template with which to give it solid grounding, to show (in reality) that it will work, how it will work, and most importantly, what problems there will be with it.

It's as simple as stating that it needs to be tested, and gradually expanded if determined to be preferable to public education, rather than wholesale replacing public education in a grand experiment that could have any number of damaging unforeseen consequences (which can be avoided by gradual testing/implementation).

Permabear wrote:

Take the red pill for a moment and look at things from a market perspective. Libertarians don't have a series of Five Year Plans to implement a national network of private education according to a predefined template, not because we haven't thought the problem through, but because advocates of a free market don't approach problems in such a manner.

Rather than wondering what a National Libertarian Education Strategy would look like, because there wouldn't be one, imagine relying on the emergent order of the market to tackle the problem from the bottom up.

Ok I'll play devils advocate for a bit; can you outline though, what would happen with public education entities that exist right now? Would they simply be sold off or rented to private interests, to let the market take over?

Putting yourself in a devils advocate position: What potential problems do you see in private education?


Also, an interesting question, what would be done about the current well-established teachers unions?

An interesting problem I read recently, involving the economic theory of markets, is how combinations of trade unions or companies to form monopolies is harmful to society (either through unions exploiting companies, or companies exploiting workers).

The goal for a truly free market without exploitation (where peoples wages match the value of their work) is to get to a situation without either form of monopoly, but the problem is that if you get rid of just one type (monopolies of trade unions, or monopolies of companies), you are left in a worse situation than if you have both.

Thus, how can you get rid of both, to end up with a truly free market?

That's not something I take to heart 100%, or think of as immutable, just something interesting I read.


Another question following from that I guess: What problems do you see with the free market?
I'm still researching the topic and reading material on all this right now, so can't tackle the free market ideals in great detail, on a fundamental level yet, but just interested in your own point of view on the potential pitfalls there.

I don't mean for my post to be interrogative by the way, this all just naturally springs up quite a lot of questions.

Channel Zero

KyussBishop wrote: »

Pick a small country with a dilapidated/non-existent educational system (probably a fair number to pick from in Africa, although dunno about political stability), make an international effort to invest in setting up private education in said country, with international research and monitoring of it's efficacy/affordability etc.; if it's profitable and effective, it should pay for itself over time.

Sorry to butt in here KyussBishop. We could also look at an OECD country that has gone down the road of education privatisation by way of the voucher system- Chile.

And before anyone asks, yes i have read and understand the article, and i understand what private education and the voucher system is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kinski

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not deriding the extremely limited educational options available to impoverished Indians; I chose to describe those informal private schools as hedge schools because the term obviously resonates with the history of education in this country. It's not a derogatory term; it just signals that I consider the example to have more in common with our past than our present.

If Finland were the only public school system I was willing to reference then it would be pretty hard to have this debate, since we are talking about Ireland. But as an aspirational model, it appears to be an excellent one.

In any case, we should note that this thread is about education in Ireland, where a quarter of 15-year-old boys are classified as functionally illiterate (per PISA 2009), where our teenagers are ranked 26th out of 34 OECD countries in maths ability (PISA 2009), where 10 percent of primary students' time is taken up by religion (versus 4 percent by science), and where the state continues to mandate the compulsory study of Irish for every child, whether parents want it or not, at the expense of postponing instruction in foreign languages until a child is at least twelve years old.

The standard response to the above is, "I acknowledge that there are some problems with our educational system. Therefore, we should reform the Irish system and make it more like Finland's." But given the powerful nexus of government, church, teachers' unions, Irish-language lobby groups, and so on that resists reform at every stage, how long do you think it will take to create a system like Finland's here?

Given the pace of change we've seen already, I don't think it need wait until your great-grandchildren's time. Education in Ireland, and the country itself, has changed so dramatically since your great-grandparent's time, why should we assume that three generations would be required to affect radical change to the present system? In terms of participation and attainment, it has changed a great deal even in the last couple of generations. Speaking of my generation, many of our parents did not even complete second-level, never mind advance to university. There are bound to be plenty of Irish people in their 60s and 70s who left school before 17, and yet saw all their children, and in turn grandchildren, go on to obtain degrees, masters, and PhDs.

Indeed, I'd argue that we're already seeing a significant shift in the teaching profession, from a situation where many incumbent teachers enjoy permanent jobs and full pensions, to one in which the oncoming generation of newly-qualified teachers muddle through on low-pay with short-term contracts offering little in the way of job security (though this, of course, may resolve itself more favourably than I suggest here.)

Every day, they see jobs advertised that their children will never be qualified for, because the government would rather appease the bishops, the unions, and the gaelgoir lobbyists than make sure that Irish children acquire the foreign language skills, maths skills, and grounding in science that 21st-century workers need.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the more worrying failures in relation to maths and literacy in the 2009 PISA represent a fall in Ireland's performance since the turn of the century? I think you yourself have argued that the Irish system offered a more challenging and robust maths syllabus back in the early-1980s. So what has gone wrong here?

Back in 1988, The Economist infamously dubbed Ireland "the poorest of the rich," but as I mentioned above, during this time we managed to increase the number of people staying in education, and within a few short years we had multi-nationals flocking to our shores, mainly to take advantage of our low-tax regime, but also praising the education and overall quality of the workforce on offer (with some caveats, particularly around foreign language competency, and they have since changed their tune somewhat.)

This was achieved despite our wretched economic position, and at a time when Church power, and probably union and gaelgoir power, was more firmly entrenched than now. Why should these things now represent insurmountable obstacles to progress?

RichieC

benway wrote: »

Anyone care to address the right to education point?

I know Ron Paul doesn't consider education a right but something you have to earn. Presumably in a past life and be lucky enough to be born back into the same wealthy bloodline. Though as a Christian I don't think he believes in reincarnation so I'm a little confused.

Valmont

benway wrote: »

Anyone care to address the right to education point?

I don't intend to turn this into a debate on rights and I'll say no more; I merely want to point out this isn't another "victory" in the argument because nobody will respond -- libertarians would just fundamentally disagree with your concept of a right in the first place.

So maybe we could start a thread on the nature of rights if you're interested.

K-9

RichieC wrote: »

I know Ron Paul doesn't consider education a right but something you have to earn. Presumably in a past life and be lucky enough to be born back into the same wealthy bloodline. Though as a Christian I don't think he believes in reincarnation so I'm a little confused.

Replies like this just aren't up to the quality shown in this thread. The poster asked a question which doesn't deserve a flippant response like that. More replies like that will result in cards.

benway

Valmont wrote: »

I don't intend to turn this into a debate on rights and I'll say no more; I merely want to point out this isn't another "victory" in the argument because nobody will respond -- libertarians would just fundamentally disagree with your concept of a right in the first place.

So maybe we could start a thread on the nature of rights if you're interested.

It's not about "victory", I wish people would stop viewing it in those terms. We're talking about education in Ireland which is a constitutionally guaranteed right, including the state provision of education, being contained at Article 42. You want to do away with this right, it appears? It has profound practical ramifications, and it's the fundamental cornerstone of our system of education. I'm a voter in your hypothetical referendum, why should I vote your way?

This is an important point, if you want to talk about education in Ireland, beyond a superficial level, then it needs to be addressed.

Valmont

benway wrote: »

We're talking about education in Ireland which is a constitutionally guaranteed right, including the state provision of education, being contained at Article 42. You want to do away with this right, it appears? It has profound practical ramifications, and it's the fundamental cornerstone of our system of education. I'm a voter in your hypothetical referendum, why should I vote your way?

Again, I, and I'm sure many libertarians, would argue that it is not a right. But this begs the question of what we should call a right and what is a right -- a topic for another thread if you would care to start one?