How would Libertarianism work in an Irish context?

benway

Suryavarman wrote: »

The problem with this model is that it is useless and there is zero need for it.

I would beg to differ. The right to education and the constitutional rights-based model is very useful indeed. Will try to keep this as brief as possible, but it’s a vast topic. Been a while since I've studied this, so obviously any errors or omissions are my own.

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.

In this model, education is more than just vocational preparation, and properly so, in my view. While the state is only strictly obliged to provide primary education, Article 3 2° specifies that a “certain minimum” of education in view of “actual conditions” is the right of every child, which would imply that there would be constitutional difficulty in rolling back on free secondary education, further implies an obligation on the state to implement mandatory examinations or another form of assessment so as to ensure that the right is being met, and sets out that education shall be “moral, intellectual and social”. The Supreme Court expanded this right to its accepted definition:

Education essentially is the teaching and training of a child to make the best possible use of his inherent and potential capacities, physical, mental and moral.

It should be borne in mind that the rights of the family trumps the duty of the state in this regard. Parents are free to provide home schooling, and while the state may investigate so as to determine whether the constitutional right is being vindicated, it is not necessary that a particularly high standard of tuition is provided, and there is no constitutional obligation on parents to teach the Irish language.

Further, on a plain reading of the Article, parents are free to send children to a school of their choosing, and even goes so far as to oblige the state to support private schools, particularly those catering to minority religions, for example Stratford College, which, although it is a private, fee-paying institution, depends primarily on Department of Education grants, owing to low class sizes. Also, privately established schools offering alternative teaching methods are entitled to seek state recognition and funding, although the state is entitled to demand certain criteria in the curriculum.

The right to education becomes particularly important in terms of children with learning or behavioural difficulties. The state is obliged to “provide for”, rather than to itself provide, suitable facilities for these children. Parents are again entitled to send their children to a school of their choosing, with “primary education” being extended, including appropriate pre-schooling, further, “the process should, ideally, continue as long as the ability for the development is discernible”, “appropriate to [the child’s] needs for as long as he[/she] is capable of benefiting from same”. Here, education includes “basic skills”:

including “self-help skills” , such as dressing, washing, feeding, toileting, “expressive skills” , such as communication skills and “leisure skills” such as playing with toys and participation in simple games.

"involves giving each child such advice, instruction and teaching as will enable as will enable him or her to make the best possible use of his or her inherent and potential capacities, physical mental and moral, however limited these capacities may be".

Where the state fails in these constitutional obligations, the affected children are entitled to damages, so as to allow the parents to provide for an alternative, although the courts are reluctant, on separation of powers grounds, to make mandatory orders, obliging the state to take a particular course, preferring to make a declaration and to allow the state, in conjunction with the parents, to deal with the practical side. This is not to say that a mandatory order will never be granted, especially in the context of statutory duties under the Education Act, 1998.

It is worth noting that the vindication of these rights includes the right to remain in the family home and receive tuition there, or in their local school, as appropriate, rather than to travel to an appropriate school or go to boarding school, as you seem to be suggesting as a solution. I would have to say that, for purely market-based education to work as you suggest, Article 42 would probably have to be removed in its entirety, as the unavailability of an appropriate school in the local area, as dictated by the vagaries of the market, would seem to infringe the right of the family as primary educator, should the parents decide that the child’s primary residence should be in the family home.

One final area worth noting is the obligation on the state, in sub-article 5, to intervene in cases where the parents are unwilling or unable to discharge in their duty, the most obvious example being in the provision of secure units for children with severe behavioural difficulties. Given that many of these parents are in straightened financial situations, or are entirely absent, and given the likely high cost of maintaining these units, I would have serious doubts as to whether adequate provision could be made for these children a purely private educational arrangement.

There is also the issue of the rights of the child, which is a separate and controversial area, which we may have to briefly get to it later, but this is more than enough for now. The most important thing is that these rights are granted to every child, not just those whose parents can afford to make appropriate provision for them, or one who is lucky enough to find a benefactor.

KyussBishop

Suryavarman wrote:

What makes you think that this will be adopted on a wide-scale without being proven? Many parents wouldn't be willing to allow their children to taught using untested methods. Some will though and this will allow new teaching methods to be tested out on a small scale before being implemented widely.

Well no that's what I mean, I think these various online learning methods will be researched, tested and put into practice on a limitated basis more, and once (or if) they are proven (that is, fully tested and proven as effective), then they can be adopted on a wider scale.

I don't think private schools would adopt this in general to test them, just probably offer them as an alternative or supplementary curriculum for starters; remains to be seen what happens basically.

Suryavarman wrote:

As long as we have Government control of education we are going to have the Leaving Cert. As long as this is the case the syllabus will need to be based on the Leaving Cert. This will mean the software will only be used in Irish schools leading to higher costs.

I'm pretty sure there are already alternative syllabi available other than the Leaving Cert, don't see any reason why there would be opposition to an online-learning based one.

Are Irish/religion mandatory outside of state-funded schools? (as benway says, they aren't for home schooling, but not sure about private schools).

Suryavarman wrote:

I don't accept that the education systems in the third world aren't comparable to those in the first world. The standard of education in the first world is also dreadful. As I have already mentioned in this post, a quarter of 15 year old males in this country are functionally illiterate. This is despite the huge amount of resources allocated towards education in Ireland. These schools in India have smaller class sizes than schools in Ireland. With the funding that would be available by catering to an equivalent demographic in Ireland, I have no doubt that these schools would easily outperform public schools.

Public education in developed countries vs that in third world countries is in no way comparable really; look at the abysmal state of India's public education, it's nothing like here, on another level entirely.

Suryavarman wrote:

Examples or evidence? How about every single education system in the first world? Last time I checked they were all giving their services away for free. If a private company did that, the Government would come crashing down on top of it like a ton of bricks.

That doesn't mean "Governments all over the world have made it their goal to force private providers out of the market"; sure half of education in Ireland is semi-private, subsidized by the state.

If a private company offered education for free (like a lot of online learning courses do, and which I personally see as a significant part of the future of 'open sourced' education), I don't see why government would oppose it.

Suryavarman wrote:

So what if a two tier system is created? The question is whether children do better or worse under a market system.

If a system promotes social segregation, it's inherently worse than what we have now, in my view.



Random question: If a child had a single parent, who for one reason or another (lets say disability through injury), could not earn money, would the child still be able to get an education in a private system?

benway

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there are already alternative syllabi available other than the Leaving Cert, don't see any reason why there would be opposition to an online-learning based one.

There's no requirement to sit the Leaving Cert, or the Junior Cert, but most would agree that having some recognised qualification is A Good Thing. There's a school in Dublin that teaches the International Baccalaureate, think there's a couple in the country who teach the A Levels as well.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Are Irish/religion mandatory outside of state-funded schools? (as benway says, they aren't for home schooling, but not sure about private schools).

No, it's only when the private school applies for recognition and funding that the state is entitled to specify that the Irish language be taught.

It's in that Cooleenbridge School case, the school was offering Steiner Waldorf method teaching, with no adequate Irish language classes, teachers whose qualifications didn't meet Department standards, and other variations with the standard curriculum - the courts found that the Department was entitled to set clear criteria for recognition and funding, but there's no obligation on a non-recognised school to adhere to these if the education provided meets the "certain minimum" standard - which is not particularly onerous.

When one adopts a global approach to the interpretation of Article 42 the values enshrined in it become obvious. It is concerned with education in a broad sense - religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social. In its entirety it is imbued with the concept of parental freedom of choice. While parents do not have the choice not to educate their children, it recognises that all parents do not have the same financial capacity to educate their children. It is in this overall context that the obligation is imposed on the State to "provide for free primary education". In my view it would pervert the clear intent of the Constitution to interpret that obligation as merely obliging the State to fund a single system of primary education which is on offer to parents on a "take it or leave it" basis. In the case of parents of limited or modest means unable to afford, or to afford without hardship, fees charged by private schools, it would render worthless the guarantee of freedom of parental choice, which is the fundamental precept of the Constitution. If the Defendants' stance - that it has discharged its constitutional obligations to the Plaintiffs by providing financial aid for 15 denominational schools within a 12 mile radius of Cooleenbridge School - was tenable, it would render meaningless the guarantee of parental freedom of choice in the case of the Parent Plaintiffs. It is not tenable.

Actually, it's an interesting arrangement that we've got, the more you dig into it - was obviously designed with the Catholic Church in mind, but it's much more "free market" than maybe some of the critics are giving it credit for - the state "provides for" education, but does not directly provide it, there's always a buffer organisation - a VEC, a Board of Management, a religious order, a private company. So, there's ample scope for private sector providers to set up and deliver education, although if they want to receive state funding, they must play ball with the Department.

More importantly, it places the child and the family at the core of education, where they should be, rather than the state or the school. Per the above, there's no obligation on parents to send their children to a recognised school either - there's a long line of case law on this going back to the 1940s, the state must respect their "conscience and lawful preference", any attempt to do otherwise is unconstitutional and invalid, but where the parents fail in their duty to the child, for whatever reason, the state takes on that duty to act in the best interests of the child.

I think that maybe it might be a good idea for people to have a close look at what they're trying to do away with before forming strong opinions on it.

Suryavarman

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there are already alternative syllabi available other than the Leaving Cert, don't see any reason why there would be opposition to an online-learning based one.

There would be plenty of opposition to it. The arguments are quite predictable:

"We can't have kids sitting in front of computers all day"

"How will we know that they are learning the right things"

"Parents won't know what online courses to pick for their children"

That doesn't mean "Governments all over the world have made it their goal to force private providers out of the market"; sure half of education in Ireland is semi-private, subsidized by the state.

If it isn't their goal then why do Government schools exist? There was no need for Government to set up these schools in the first place so why on earth are they still around? It's debatable whether the Government even needed to subsidise poor students in the first place never mind set up Government schools.

The Irish education system isn't really semi-private. The building's might be privately owned but all the running costs are funded by the Government.

If a private company offered education for free (like a lot of online learning courses do, and which I personally see as a significant part of the future of 'open sourced' education), I don't see why government would oppose it.

Governments have historical precedent of prosecuting companies for giving their products away for free. I have no doubt they would find someway of doing the same thing in education if they got the chance.

If a system promotes social segregation, it's inherently worse than what we have now, in my view.

So even if a system produces better results for all it is still worse because rich people and poor people go to different schools. Or to apply that belief in a different scenario, it is better that the people of an entire nation are equally poor than unequally rich.

Random question: If a child had a single parent, who for one reason or another (lets say disability through injury), could not earn money, would the child still be able to get an education in a private system?

Off the top of my head any of the following:

• The parent could take out diasability insurance to insure against disability prior to becoming disabled.
  
• The parent could give the child up for adoption.
  
• The parent could take a job where their disability wouldn't be a problem. A call centre job or a job as a receptionist wouldn't be to physically strenuous for example.
  
• The child could go to a charity school.
  
• The child's grandparents or other family members could help fund the child's education.

benway

Suryavarman wrote: »

If it isn't their goal then why do Government schools exist?

"Government schools" is a very crude way of putting it, as above.

Suryavarman wrote: »

There was no need for Government to set up these schools in the first place so why on earth are they still around?

In the overwhelming majority of cases, they didn't set them up.

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's debatable whether the Government even needed to subsidise poor students in the first place never mind set up Government schools.

We'll get to that presently. This reasoning, an aversion to taxes, and a general hostility towards "government" seems to be at the heart of the libertarian position, rather than the reality of the system.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Governments have historical precedent of prosecuting companies for giving their products away for free. I have no doubt they would find someway of doing the same thing in education if they got the chance.

Seems highly unlikely that it would be constitutionally sound to prosecute anyone for providing education, under any circumstances. Even if a provider was found to be totally substandard, which would be take some going, given that the bar, a "certain minimum", isn't set particularly high, the responsibility would fall back on the parents, rather than the institution/teacher. In a case where a vaguely similar prosecution was brought against parents providing home tuition, the courts found overwhelmingly in favour of the parents, even though the standard of education they were providing was poor at best.

I think you should probably have a read through those posts on how education actually works in this country, rather than thrashing away at a strawman. Once you've done that, or done some research of your own, maybe come back and give me a more substantive opinion on what's so wrong with this system.

KyussBishop

Suryavarman wrote:

There would be plenty of opposition to it. The arguments are quite predictable:

"We can't have kids sitting in front of computers all day"

"How will we know that they are learning the right things"

"Parents won't know what online courses to pick for their children"

*shrugs* I think if online learning becomes well developed and proven enough to adopt on a wide-scale, it won't be vulnerable to political spin.

In the end, if the most pure form of online learning takes hold (done entirely on computer, rather than a hybrid of class and online), it could be undertaken as a form of home-schooling; it doesn't seem like there are restrictions on curriculum in that specific circumstance (possibly not with private schools either, judging by Irish/religion not being mandatory).

Suryavarman wrote:

If it isn't their goal then why do Government schools exist? There was no need for Government to set up these schools in the first place so why on earth are they still around? It's debatable whether the Government even needed to subsidise poor students in the first place never mind set up Government schools.

The Irish education system isn't really semi-private. The building's might be privately owned but all the running costs are funded by the Government.

Well, the government is currently obligated to provide that service; it's not based on the ideal of "forc[ing] private providers out of the market", it's based on the ideal specified in article 42.

Granted that semi-private don't cover their own running costs (thus their 'private' nature is fairly diluted); I don't know a lot about their funding details.

Suryavarman wrote:

Governments have historical precedent of prosecuting companies for giving their products away for free. I have no doubt they would find someway of doing the same thing in education if they got the chance.

Even though I've covered this a bit above (with regards to home schooling) and don't think it's an issue, I'm curious about this somewhat, separate to the main topic: when have governments prosecuted companies for giving products away free?

Suryavarman wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

If a system promotes social segregation, it's inherently worse than what we have now, in my view.

So even if a system produces better results for all it is still worse because rich people and poor people go to different schools. Or to apply that belief in a different scenario, it is better that the people of an entire nation are equally poor than unequally rich.

I'll retract that a bit, in that (on second thoughts) you can't really avoid some social segregation in a private system, due to some schools naturally having higher fees (for higher quality of teaching) than others. Segregation is undesireable, but probably unavoidable there, when it comes to higher income students.

However, a separate aspect of that, which I brought up earlier: Should it be mandated that schools cannot discriminate on what students they accept?
For instance, some students (e.g. those with disabilities or behavioural problems) are more costly to teach, and a past issue with private schools is where they have 'creamed-off' the easy to teach students, with more expensive students sometimes left in the cold.

Suryavarman

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well, the government is currently obligated to provide that service; it's not based on the ideal of "forc[ing] private providers out of the market", it's based on the ideal specified in article 42.

Why was the Constitution written that way? It could have said "in the case that a family cannot afford to educate their child, the state will cover the cost" or something to that effect. But it didn't. The Constitution instead says that "The State shall provide for free primary education" effectively forcing private providers out of the market.

Even though I've covered this a bit above (with regards to home schooling) and don't think it's an issue, I'm curious about this somewhat, separate to the main topic: when have governments prosecuted companies for giving products away free?

In the United States vs. Microsoft case the US Department of Justice was at one stage seeking to break Microsoft into two companies because Microsoft was bundling Internet Explorer with it's operating system. The EU has done likewise. Most antitrust cases seem to prosecute companies for making their products cheap as opposed to free.

However, a separate aspect of that, which I brought up earlier: Should it be mandated that schools cannot discriminate on what students they accept?
For instance, some students (e.g. those with disabilities or behavioural problems) are more costly to teach, and a past issue with private schools is where they have 'creamed-off' the easy to teach students, with more expensive students sometimes left in the cold.

No it shouldn't be mandated. On moral grounds it is wrong to tell someone what they can and can't do with their private property.

On practical grounds I don't think it would be a good thing to do. The student with a disability or behavioural problem(the "problem" student for brevity's sake) will be dragging resources away from the rest of the students. This will result in poorer results for the rest of the students but not necessarily any gain for the "problem" student.

The "problem" student may also face social exclusion in a school of children that don't have those problems. The other students may develop a resentment towards the "problem" student due to them holding back the other students. This could be very damaging to the student as they mightn't develop the social skills necessary in the real world.

The "problem" student might also be better off in school with students with similar problems. This could allow for specialised teachers that would know the best way to teach these students. This could allow the "problem" student to get better grades than they would in a school full of students without these difficulties.

benway

Loire wrote: »

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

Suryavarman wrote: »

The State shall provide for free primary education" effectively forcing private providers out of the market.

That couldn't be further from the truth. The constitution was clearly framed in such a way as to (a) maintain effective control of the education sector by a non-state actor, the Catholic Church and (b) ensure that minority religions, i.e. Protestants, weren't forced to attend Catholic schools.

This has all kinds of interesting, and probably unintended, effects on the provision of education in this country. The state does not provide education, it "provides for" education. The Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation, has taken the view that Article 42, "is imbued with the concept of parental freedom of choice".

The constitution specifically not only recognises the right of parents to send their children to private schools, but also places an obligation on the state to "supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative". As far back as 1942, the Supreme Court rejected any attempt by the state to specify the manner in which education is provided, so long as it attains a "certain minimum" level.

The state is under no obligation to establish schools, but my "recognise or establish" them. There are actually very few "government" schools in this country - even "National" schools are generally run by an independent, usually Church dominated, Board of Management. Arguably the V.E.C. system, of which the writer is an alumnus, encompasses the only genuinely state-established and state-run educational providers, give or take secure units for children with behavioural difficulties.

No offence, but I think you need to step back from what appears to be a generic anti-state position and deal with the reality of educational provision in this country.

Suryavarman wrote: »

In the United States vs. Microsoft case the US Department of Justice was at one stage seeking to break Microsoft into two companies because Microsoft was bundling Internet Explorer with it's operating system. The EU has done likewise. Most antitrust cases seem to prosecute companies for making their products cheap as opposed to free.

Let me understand this. You're arguing against an alleged, wrongly, state monopoly in the education sector by citing an anti-trust case against one of the world's most dominant corporations? Would probably work out ok, if you weren't siding with the monopoly.

Suryavarman wrote: »

On moral grounds it is wrong to tell someone what they can and can't do with their private property.

And on moral grounds it's unacceptable that any child should go without a "certain minimum" level of education. The constitution reflects the reality that a large portion of the population, then, as now, simply couldn't afford to pay for education for their children. Two ways of dealing with this, either we infringe upon one right to a limited extent so as to vindicate the other, or we treat one right as an absolute, totally sacrosanct, and deny poor children the other entirely. I know which side I'm on.

Public goods and market-based approaches. Never the twain shall meet.

KyussBishop

Suryavarman wrote: »

Why was the Constitution written that way? It could have said "in the case that a family cannot afford to educate their child, the state will cover the cost" or something to that effect. But it didn't. The Constitution instead says that "The State shall provide for free primary education" effectively forcing private providers out of the market.

Well we've diverged from the original point here by a wide margin; the way you put it is as if it is the goal of states is to force out private schools and as if the state is openly hostile to them (or maybe not, is just how I've read it).

The goal of public education obviously isn't to force out private providers, and states aren't hostile to private education. Private schools are free to try and sell their services; if public schools make them uncompetitive, that doesn't mean the state is hostile to them.

Suryavarman wrote: »

In the United States vs. Microsoft case the US Department of Justice was at one stage seeking to break Microsoft into two companies because Microsoft was bundling Internet Explorer with it's operating system. The EU has done likewise. Most antitrust cases seem to prosecute companies for making their products cheap as opposed to free.

Well, the problem there was Microsoft using its operating system market monopoly to make their web browser the de-facto default; IE is free still, they just can't force it as your default browser now (so it wasn't punishing them for making it free).

Are there other antitrust examples that fit punishment for cheap or free products?

Suryavarman wrote: »

No it shouldn't be mandated. On moral grounds it is wrong to tell someone what they can and can't do with their private property.

On practical grounds I don't think it would be a good thing to do. The student with a disability or behavioural problem(the "problem" student for brevity's sake) will be dragging resources away from the rest of the students. This will result in poorer results for the rest of the students but not necessarily any gain for the "problem" student.

The "problem" student may also face social exclusion in a school of children that don't have those problems. The other students may develop a resentment towards the "problem" student due to them holding back the other students. This could be very damaging to the student as they mightn't develop the social skills necessary in the real world.

The "problem" student might also be better off in school with students with similar problems. This could allow for specialised teachers that would know the best way to teach these students. This could allow the "problem" student to get better grades than they would in a school full of students without these difficulties.

Ok well this guarantees a certain level of social segregation, beyond the unavoidable segregation based on fees; there's a very high likelihood of more expensive to teach students (mentally, physically, behaviorally disabled) being segregated for starters.

You seem to promote this segregation explicitly? Rather than trying to integrate the person with issues/disabilities into a normal social environment, you would explicitly separate them? (with the school making the choice, not the student or their parents)


This doesn't have to be students with a severe disability, just one which makes them marginally more expensive to take on; e.g. someone in a wheelchair.

It could easily cover people of a particular background as well, e.g. it would be acceptable for a private school to show prejudice against taking on a kid from a traveler family (they probably wouldn't get away with explicitly stating that, but could easily refuse them without reason).

Same with any other minority group; if you applied this in the US right now, you'd likely further inflame racial segregation there (which is already a big issue), and particularly you'd probably have a massive increase in segregation of muslim students.


Do you see any potential issues (beyond and/or including the above) with making segregation acceptable like that?


EDIT:

benway wrote:

Suryavarman wrote:

...

Let me understand this. You're arguing against an alleged, wrongly, state monopoly in the education sector by citing an anti-trust case against one of the world's most dominant corporations? Would probably work out ok, if you weren't siding with the monopoly.

Ah no, I asked an off topic question, for an example of state punishing a company for giving a product away free (the answer wasn't relating to public education).

benway

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ah no, I asked an off topic question, for an example of state punishing a company for giving a product away free (the answer wasn't relating to public education).

Fair enough, I probably shouldn't post p!ssed, and I should really go to bed. Although, like I say, I think it's highly unlikely that anyone could be successfully prosecuted for providing education in this country, under any circumstances. It's probable that a private institution would be subjected to a higher standard of scrutiny than parents, but still, even if it's found lacking, the onus falls back on the parents, not the provider.

Eliot Rosewater

Kinski wrote: »

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.

It shouldn't really matter if the the majority of Irish parents consider Irish worthwhile. It certainly doesn't make it anymore worthwhile in my mind.

Kinski wrote: »

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?

If course such people have influence. I have no doubt that there are some capable people framing educational policy. The problem is that we are forced to accept their model no matter what. There is no "respectfully disagree" when education is monopolized.

It's ironic that the issue of testing has arisen, because in my mind one of the benefits of a more-privatized schooling system is that different approaches can be evaluated. If I were free to establish an alternative mathematics curriculum then we could evaluate whether my model was better than that of the governmental experts. We wouldn't just have to speculate - we could actually do it.

I think this is even more important given the kind of incentives present in government policy. Governments want to make teachers happy, make gaelgoirs happy, make the church happy, and make themselves look good. These considerations are, in my opinion, completely secondary to the issue of educating children. An alternative model would allow these priorities to be challenged - and we could actually see the outcomes.

KyussBishop

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It's ironic that the issue of testing has arisen, because in my mind one of the benefits of a more-privatized schooling system is that different approaches can be evaluated. If I were free to establish an alternative mathematics curriculum then we could evaluate whether my model was better than that of the governmental experts. We wouldn't just have to speculate - we could actually do it.

I think this is even more important given the kind of incentives present in government policy. Governments want to make teachers happy, make gaelgoirs happy, make the church happy, and make themselves look good. These considerations are, in my opinion, completely secondary to the issue of educating children. An alternative model would allow these priorities to be challenged - and we could actually see the outcomes.

You can though, you're perfectly able to put together a new curriculum and convince research institutes, private schools, home schoolers, or (I believe) even students in public schools to adopt it on a trial basis, for research purposes.

There may be barriers to entry for such a curriculum in public schools (i.e. it would probably need evaluation first), but I don't believe the government is hostile to alternative curricula, there are already alternatives available in public schools.

benway

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It shouldn't really matter if the the majority of Irish parents consider Irish worthwhile. It certainly doesn't make it anymore worthwhile in my mind.

Well, you're free to send your child to a private school that doesn't teach Irish if you feel so strongly about it.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

There is no "respectfully disagree" when education is monopolized.

I think that the state "monopoly" on education is by no means as straightforward as some of you are making out ... if you're to look at the reality

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If I were free to establish an alternative mathematics curriculum then we could evaluate whether my model was better than that of the governmental experts. We wouldn't just have to speculate - we could actually do it.

You are free to implement the Eliot Rosewater method if you so choose - if it's at primary level, you're likely to be subjected to some degree of scrutiny so as to ensure that the "certain minimum" standard is being adhered to. Beyond that, if you don't apply for state funding, it's a matter between yourself and the parents.

For at least the third time, that Cooleenbridge School is a good example - they set up privately, as a limited company, delivering Steiner Waldorf method education, the teachers didn't have qualifications recognised by the Department, and the curriculum was at total variance with the Department's model, including the fact that they didn't teach Irish.

They repeatedly attempted to have the school "recognised" by the Department so as to receive ongoing funding - I'm not sure whether they received grants before this, it's possible - but were refused because the Department were unhappy with the curriculum. All the while, the school was teaching children.

They eventually compromised, implemented a hybrid curriculum, taking enough of the Department's model to keep them happy, but retaining a backbone of Steiner Waldorf methodology, and received recognition and funding equivalent to a conventional "national" school in 2010. The Supreme Court put it that:

In my view it would pervert the clear intent of the Constitution to interpret that obligation as merely obliging the State to fund a single system of primary education which is on offer to parents on a "take it or leave it" basis. In the case of parents of limited or modest means unable to afford, or to afford without hardship, fees charged by private schools, it would render worthless the guarantee of freedom of parental choice, which is the fundamental precept of the Constitution.

Obviously, given the second line there, that includes the right to have alternative methods delivered "free", via state funding, so long as the criteria for "recognition" are clear and fair.

Your biggest difficulties, aside from convincing parents that your methods were so far superior that they should pay fees (and claim tax relief) for something they could get for "free" elsewhere, would be in convincing other institutions, particularly third level, to recognise your qualification, if you were offering one. You could apply to FETAC for recognition, this appears to be how the Cooleenbridge crowd have organised their secondary option, rather than teaching the leaving cert.

In fact, you could even deliver tuition online, although I would imagine that there would be a duty on the parents to ensure a certain level of supervision, it'd probably fall into the home-schooling category. But again, the onus would be on the parents to ensure standards were being met, not the provider.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think this is even more important given the kind of incentives present in government policy. Governments want to make teachers happy, make gaelgoirs happy, make the church happy, and make themselves look good. These considerations are, in my opinion, completely secondary to the issue of educating children. An alternative model would allow these priorities to be challenged - and we could actually see the outcomes.

So, I think it's clear that there is ample scope for private sector providers to establish themselves in this country, and that there's no obligation on any parent to avail of the state system, if they so choose. Plus, private providers can even receive ongoing government funding if they play ball with the Department.

Unless anyone has anything further, I think it may be time to move on to the socioeconomic reality behind that "killer" OECD statistic.

Kinski

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fair enough.

It's clear that while Irish education may have had a brief period of flourishing, it has never been a good system overall. It has historically produced very high rates of illiteracy and innumeracy (the National Adult Literacy Agency estimates that 25 percent of Irish adults have literacy difficulties, compared with 3 percent in Sweden and 5 percent in Germany) and has chronically underserved the interests of industry and commerce at the expense of pandering to religion and nationalism. So I'm loathe to agree with your impression that in the 2000s we saw a really great educational system fall from glory. It has always been a system riddled with problems.

I don't think I said it was "really great" - my impression is that circa 1990 we were doing reasonably well for a country that was an economic backwater with low per capita spending on education.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It shouldn't really matter if the the majority of Irish parents consider Irish worthwhile. It certainly doesn't make it anymore worthwhile in my mind.

That was just a response to your contention that Irish remains a core part of the curriculum because of the influence of "vested interests" - in other words, government is imposing compulsory Irish on an unwilling populace at the behest of gaelgoirs and teachers qualified to teach it. I imagine support for retaining it on the curriculum is a lot more widespread than that (even though I favour its removal myself.)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Digressing from the education topic for a moment, this story came to my attention today: a farmer fined a substantial sum for destroying an ancient ring fort.

It strikes me that, in a libertarian society, the farmer would have had every right to destroy the ring fort because he owned it, and there would be no mechanism by which he could be punished for doing so.

Is that an unfair assessment?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

oscarBravo wrote: »

Digressing from the education topic for a moment, this story came to my attention today: a farmer fined a substantial sum for destroying an ancient ring fort.

It strikes me that, in a libertarian society, the farmer would have had every right to destroy the ring fort because he owned it, and there would be no mechanism by which he could be punished for doing so.

Is that an unfair assessment?

Private property, in its fullest sense, implies complete ownership of an item or property. Any state-imposed caveats or limitations on the use of property necessarily means that the individual is not the sole owner but only the nominal owner: the state allows one to keep property or an item only if their rules for use are followed.

So while I think it's a shame this farmer destroyed the ring fort, I don't see why the state has a right to punish him for it -- unless they're telling us who really owns the land.

Kinski

Valmont wrote: »

Private property, in its fullest sense, implies complete ownership of an item or property. Any state-imposed caveats or limitations on the use of property necessarily means that the individual is not the sole owner but only the nominal owner: the state allows one to keep property or an item only if their rules for use are followed.

So while I think it's a shame this farmer destroyed the ring fort, I don't see why the state has a right to punish him for it -- unless they're telling us who really owns the land.

But wouldn't even Libertopia place some limitations on the use of property, to the extent that certain uses would violate the rights of others? So, for example, you couldn't use your backgarden as a dumping ground for toxic waste, since that would affect the rights of your neighbour, right?

Reminds me of a joke P. J. O'Rourke once made: the right to bear arms does not imply the right to fire them wildly into the air, or to waggle them in people's faces!

RichieC

Kinski wrote: »

But wouldn't even Libertopia place some limitations on the use of property, to the extent that certain uses would violate the rights of others? So, for example, you couldn't use your backgarden as a dumping ground for toxic waste, since that would affect the rights of your neighbour, right?

Or stick huge billboards up with hardcore pornography all over them. No world or ideology will end up giving you 100% ownership of you land. It's ridiculous.

How much more free can you realistically get? The Answer is, none really, but big business and big money can as free as they want, which is, at the end of the day, all Libertarians really care about. Their personal freedom window dressing is very transparent.

Kinski

RichieC wrote: »

Or stick huge billboards up with hardcore pornography all over them.

No?!! That's my weekend ruined.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's the nub of the question, yes.

Leaving aside just for a moment the question of private property rights, let's take this question in perfect isolation: is the world a better place - even only a marginally better place - with The Scream, or Michelangelo's David, or the pyramids at Giza, or the Bamiyan Buddhas, or an archaeologically interesting ring fort in Kerry in it than without?

If the answer is "yes", then the argument for the right to destroy one's own personal property is an argument that it's OK to make the world a worse place - even if only a marginally worse place - in the execution of those rights.

Valmont wrote: »

Private property, in its fullest sense, implies complete ownership of an item or property. Any state-imposed caveats or limitations on the use of property necessarily means that the individual is not the sole owner but only the nominal owner: the state allows one to keep property or an item only if their rules for use are followed.

Well, no. You made a subtle but critical logical leap in the middle of that paragraph, which suggests that you're incapable of seeing any issue other than in terms of ownership. The state applies caveats on the use of property not because the state is asserting ownership of the property, but because of a social contract. I accept that you disagree with the idea of a social contract, but that doesn't mean that you get to reframe the discussion in terms of the only idea you do agree with, and dismiss it on that basis.

Put another way: even in a libertarian society ('scuse the oxymoron), you wouldn't be allowed to burn tyres in your urban backyard. That doesn't mean you don't own that backyard.

So while I think it's a shame this farmer destroyed the ring fort, I don't see why the state has a right to punish him for it -- unless they're telling us who really owns the land.

How does that philosophy map to a hypothetical scenario where a farmer beats a horse to death? It's his property, after all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

There's just so many reasons and great examples of people exploiting this 100% property right canard that it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Say I, just to be an ass, decide to build a big shed out my back that completely destroys my neighbours view of the lovely lake we both paid a lot of cash to have. in this case it won't be the state asserting it's right over my property, but my neighbour!

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Can you not see the tatty, horrible little planet we'd be heading for? Would you accept huge big billboards with pictures of hard core porn all over it next to your house?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova

RichieC wrote: »

Say I, just to be an ass, decide to build a big shed out my back that completely destroys my neighbours view of the lovely lake we both paid a lot of cash to have. in this case it won't be the state asserting it's right over my property, but my neighbour!

This is an interesting one, keep in mind it happens when the state decides to construct a dual carriageway just a few feet away from your back garden where you once had a beautiful view of green fields and cows grazing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

neither do I, but you can be dam sure I would if this crap was being erected near me, along with virtually every other person in eye shot.

RichieC

SupaNova wrote: »

This is an interesting one, keep in mind it happens when the state decides to construct a dual carriageway just a few feet away from your back garden where you once had a beautiful view of green fields and cows grazing.

Dual carrigeways are a requirement of a modern economy and they have to go somewhere. even in a libertarian state. It's a poor analogue, frankly.