Access to Education

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm well off am I? My bank account Would suggest otherwise.

You're better off than someone who can't afford fees.

Iwasfrozen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you would abolish private schools?

No but if we stopped government subsidies to them then their numbers would drop hugely because very few areas have a high enough percentage of very wealthy parents.

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you would abolish private schools?

I'd stop subsidising them, and most would join the ranks of schools which charge no fees.

A few elite institutions like Blackrock (where minister Quinn went to school) would continue, so that Ross O'Carroll Kelly's writer would not run out of material.

Fratton Fred

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No but if we stopped government subsidies to them then their numbers would drop hugely because very few areas have a high enough percentage of very wealthy parents.

Making them even more elitist.

An Coilean

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Making them even more elitist.

Let them be, but the Government should not subsidise giving some children an advantage over others.

Fratton Fred

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'd stop subsidising them, and most would join the ranks of schools which charge no fees.

A few elite institutions like Blackrock (where minister Quinn went to school) would continue, so that Ross O'Carroll Kelly's writer would not run out of material.

Which would mean that access to schools such as Andrews and Blackrock would be even harder for the average person, creating an even more elite society.

hfallada

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'd stop subsidising them, and most would join the ranks of schools which charge no fees.

A few elite institutions like Blackrock (where minister Quinn went to school) would continue, so that Ross O'Carroll Kelly's writer would not run out of material.

Private primary schools receive no state funding. But private secondary schools do receive a contribution to wages. Have you ever been to a private school? A majority of them have middle class families who have decide not to go on foreign holidays and replace the car every 3 years like most parents who send their children to public schools. Removing state funding will only increase costs to tax payer as students leave the private system

RandomName2

Imho schools denominated by religion or language set up far more barriers in society than the presence or absence of fees.

But this thread isn't about that; it's about the right of schools to have autonomy over their choice of student. If we think of them as private businesses, then of course they should be able to have a say. If we consider them as public services however, then their choice in the matter seems antithetical to concept of equality that we have attempted to espouse.

But the bottom line is that all people (not just children btw) have a right to education in Ireland. That is a fundamental right. Should it also be a fundamental right to have as good a chance as anyone else to education in any given institution? Should the person's background, knowledge, means, location, history with the institution, etc have no hand in the matter?

The OP says that nothing should have a deciding say, except the person's language. Rory Quinn, I believe, says that your address should be a deciding matter. 3rd level institutes naturally use grades and knowledge as determining factors in terms of eligibility. Many institutions 'discriminate' based on age. I'm sure we could have buckets of people saying that one's faith should also be taken into consideration.

Provided that we are not going to have all schools as secular public institutions, where each is a carbon copy of the next, it stands to reason that allowing schools maintain autonomy on the matter is better than a half-baked idealistic attempt to improve the situation, and result instead in a more selective bias.

Iwasfrozen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Making them even more elitist.

Exactly, let them be. But the number of private schools would fall dramatically. Meaning the vast majority of children would start out on an equal footing. It's not ideal but its the best we can do without out lawing private schools.

K-9

VinLieger wrote: »

Like it or not not all of these childrens parents are wealthy bankers, politicians, accountants etc. Many have chosen to go without certain other luxuries like holidays abroad, new cars etc to send their children to these schools so they can provide for them what they deem a better education.
If the subsidy was stopped tomorrow a hell of a lot of these kids would be immediately re-introduced back into the public system, due to the parents not being able to afford the new fees, where they would end up costing the state twice as much as they originally did and the simple fact is there is not enough public secondary schools to take such an influx at the moment.

The argument that it would cost twice as much for the state always comes up on this subject, but I've yet to see much evidence for that. It just seems to be one of these figures bandied about that is just accepted.

Zubeneschamali

hfallada wrote: »

A majority of them have middle class families who have decide not to go on foreign holidays and replace the car every 3 years like most parents who send their children to public schools. Removing state funding will only increase costs to tax payer as students leave the private system

It will not "only" increase the costs, it will increase the funding to schools which are open to all. This is a good thing, even if it costs the taxpayer money.

BTW, I have nothing against parents who choose to send their children to a fee paying school, I can quite see how it might make sense. I just don't think I should have to subsidise that choice.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Doesn't matter, I'd happily pay that price for greater social equality and mobility. Society should be meritocratic, no one should have an advantage in life because their parents were wealthy.

.

So you'd have no problem making everyone worse off in the name of "equality"?

p1akuw47h5r3it

An Coilean wrote: »

That is a good question, as mentioned above the general criteria are that at least one parent have Irish and the child show an ability to understand spoken Irish.

There would have to be some discression on the part of schools though the Dept. should draw up guidelines and regulate it to prevent abuse of the system.

As someone who, as far as I'm aware, would love irish to be more widely spoken do you not think your plans will have the opposite affect?

Basically children who are being or going to be brought up with Irish outside of school will get preference over those who will not, but whose parent may want their child to become fluent in irish.

If anything you should want more non-Irish speaking children attending in order to spread the reach of the language...

K-9

DanDan6592 wrote: »

So you'd have no problem making everyone worse off in the name of "equality"?

Hard to know if everyone would be worse of. Going on a thread last year, private education costs about €100 Million to the state, covering about 50 schools and 26,000 students, about €4,000 a student. The average private school fee is €5/6,000 a year so it is heavily subsidised.

Indeed it is a misnomer to call it private, it's very much semi private.

p1akuw47h5r3it

K-9 wrote: »

Hard to know if everyone would be worse of. Going on a thread last year, private education costs about €100 Million to the state, covering about 50 schools and 26,000 students, about €4,000 a student. The average private school fee is €5/6,000 a year so it is heavily subsidised.

Indeed it is a misnomer to call it private, it's very much semi private.

Well students would be worse of as the student teacher ratio would increase meaning less individual interaction with the teacher.

The taxpayer would be worse of as they would have the cover the cost of a large number of students re-entering public schools (not to mention the probable need to build more schools)

And you could say society as a whole would be worse of as the fully private schools would simply become extremely elite.

PRAF

Giving huge Subsidies to elitist private schools is hard to justify when thousands of kids go to school hungry every day. That 100m would be better spent in the public system

It's a classic case of economic rent seeking. The well connected elite have rigged the system so their kids get a better education, the riff raff are kept away, their access to the best 3rd level institutions is assured, social mobility is hampered and inequality becomes more ingrained. It's a grubby little system IMO

Iwasfrozen

DanDan6592 wrote: »

So you'd have no problem making everyone worse off in the name of "equality"?

why would everyone be worse off?

p1akuw47h5r3it

PRAF wrote: »

Giving huge Subsidies to elitist private schools is hard to justify when thousands of kids go to school hungry every day. That 100m would be better spent in the public system

It's a classic case of economic rent seeking. The well connected elite have rigged the system so their kids get a better education, the riff raff are kept away, their access to the best 3rd level institutions is assured, social mobility is hampered and inequality becomes more ingrained. It's a grubby little system IMO

That is such nonsense. As has already been pointed out a large portion of students at these schools are from middle-class families. To suggest that they are all super wealthy or the system is "rigged" is ridiculous.

There is also nothing stopping anyone from a public school doing well and going to University if they want to. They just have to put the work in like everyone else.

And has already been stated private secondary schools save the government money.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

why would everyone be worse off?

I outlined some reasons in post No. 46.

Iwasfrozen

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Well students would be worse of as the student teacher ratio would increase meaning less individual interaction with the teacher.

The taxpayer would be worse of as they would have the cover the cost of a large number of students re-entering public schools (not to mention the probable need to build more schools)

And you could say society as a whole would be worse of as the fully private schools would simply become extremely elite.

Society would be better off because when everyone starts on an equal footing the smartest and hardest working rise to the top and the laziest, regardless of social background, don't. No one should have a better start in life because their parents can afford it.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Society would be better off because when everyone starts on an equal footing the smartest and hardest working rise to the top and the laziest, regardless of social background, don't. No one should have a better start in life because their parents can afford it.

So basically you think private schools should be outlawed altogether then.

And you did not address my other points. The overall standard of education would diminish due to a large number of children entering the public system. This benefits noone.

And how do the smartest and hardest working not already rise to the top with our current system?

PRAF

DanDan6592 wrote: »

That is such nonsense. As has already been pointed out a large portion of students at these schools are from middle-class families. To suggest that they are all super wealthy or the system is "rigged" is ridiculous.

There is also nothing stopping anyone from a public school doing well and going to University if they want to. They just have to put the work in like everyone else.

And has already been stated private secondary schools save the government money.

I'm sure there are some middle class kids in these schools but in my experience the majority would be upper middle class or very wealthy.

I've no issue with these schools except for the fact that they are subsidised by govt. At a time when we have greater needs, this subsidy is unjustifiable IMO.

The facts re admissions to TCD, ucd, etc speak for themselves. The system is rigged whether you care to admit it or not

Re saving the state money.. That is open to debate. In the short term, perhaps. However this kind of economic rent seeking is argued by many economists to be detrimental in the longer term. It deepens inequality, depresses social mobility, reduces equality of opportunity, and ultimately the elite gain to the detriment of the majority

Iwasfrozen

DanDan6592 wrote: »

So basically you think private schools should be outlawed altogether then.

Not out lawed. Cut all government subsidies and the vast majority will close down or become public schools. Only very few like Blackrock college will remain open and even then their fees will sky rocket.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

And you did not address my other points. The overall standard of education would diminish due to a large number of children entering the public system. This benefits no one.

I'm happy to pay the cost for more teachers through increased taxation if it means we have a more equal, meritocratic society.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

And how do the smartest and hardest working not already rise to the top with our current system?

They do but they don't start out on an equal footing since private schools offer a better standard of education.

Iwasfrozen

PRAF wrote: »

Re saving the state money.. That is open to debate. In the short term, perhaps. However this kind of economic rent seeking is argued by many economists to be detrimental in the longer term. It deepens inequality, depresses social mobility, reduces equality of opportunity, and ultimately the elite gain to the detriment of the majority

This. In the long term a country without high social mobility will become inefficient.

p1akuw47h5r3it

PRAF wrote: »

I'm sure there are some middle class kids in these schools but in my experience the majority would be upper middle class or very wealthy.

I've no issue with these schools except for the fact that they are subsidised by govt. At a time when we have greater needs, this subsidy is unjustifiable IMO.

The facts re admissions to TCD, ucd, etc speak for themselves. The system is rigged whether you care to admit it or not

Re saving the state money.. That is open to debate. In the short term, perhaps. However this kind of economic rent seeking is argued by many economists to be detrimental in the longer term. It deepens inequality, depresses social mobility, reduces equality of opportunity, and ultimately the elite gain to the detriment of the majority

The admissions to TCD, UCD etc. will show that those students that go to college tend to be from middle to extremely wealthy backgrounds. The form of school doesn't tend to matter.
The government and colleges bends over backwards to get people from disadvantaged areas to go to college (free fees, access programmes etc.), yet the number of students going onto 3rd level from disadvantaged areas has not increased by much at all.
My point being that it tends to be down to a persons social status whether they will go to college or not.

Now before you say "well getting rid of priate schools will change this", it won't. You'll just have more children in public schools in middle class, rich areas and possibly disadvantaged areas meaning the overall level of education will decrease. The number of students from poorer backgrounds going to college will not change.

Therefore you will be left with a situation where the taxpayer has to pay more to fund the extra students, the standard of education will fall across the board and less well off people will be no better off (or even worse off considering they may end up paying more in taxes).

p1akuw47h5r3it

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not out lawed. Cut all government subsidies and the vast majority will close down or become public schools. Only very few like Blackrock college will remain open and even then their fees will sky rocket.


I'm happy to pay the cost for more teachers through increased taxation if it means we have a more equal, meritocratic society.


They do but they don't start out on an equal footing since private schools offer a better standard of education.

You'll also have to pay more taxes to build more schools, increased heating costs, grant costs etc. It will all add up.

Iwasfrozen

DanDan6592 wrote: »

You'll also have to pay more taxes to build more schools, increased heating costs, grant costs etc. It will all add up.

Of course it does. And I'd be happy to pay it. I couldn't have gone to college without government support and everyone should be entitled to that same support. Embrace the revolution comrade.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course it does. And I'd be happy to pay it. I couldn't have gone to college without government support and everyone should be entitled to that same support. Embrace the revolution comrade.

Everyone, so even the super wealthy??

And I've always loved this anthem more tbh :pac::pac:

:pac:

Iwasfrozen

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Everyone, so even the super wealthy??

And I've always loved this anthem more tbh :pac::pac:

:pac:

They're entitled to it if they find themselves on hard times yeah. But middle class parents should not be allowed to buy their children an advantage over the children of working class parents.

I love that anthem.

PRAF

DanDan6592 wrote: »

The admissions to TCD, UCD etc. will show that those students that go to college tend to be from middle to extremely wealthy backgrounds. The form of school doesn't tend to matter.
The government and colleges bends over backwards to get people from disadvantaged areas to go to college (free fees, access programmes etc.), yet the number of students going onto 3rd level from disadvantaged areas has not increased by much at all.
My point being that it tends to be down to a persons social status whether they will go to college or not.

Now before you say "well getting rid of priate schools will change this", it won't. You'll just have more children in public schools in middle class, rich areas and possibly disadvantaged areas meaning the overall level of education will decrease. The number of students from poorer backgrounds going to college will not change.

Therefore you will be left with a situation where the taxpayer has to pay more to fund the extra students, the standard of education will fall across the board and less well off people will be no better off (or even worse off considering they may end up paying more in taxes).

Re social status - yes, this is why the current system is wrong. The education system is rigged in favour of the elite, as are the professions, as is the legal system, the regulatory regime, the health system, etc. All of this reinforces inequality. Ultimately this inequality is bad for everyone.