Access to Education

Cody Pomeray

The argument in favour of prolonging state subsidies for private education is almost entertaining for how left-wing it is.

The theory necessarily employs the principle of universal dependence.

That no matter who you are, or what your income is, the services you employ over your lifetime must involve a universal minimum contribution from the state, even if they are not state services.

I think that's incredible.

It's the exact equivalent of saying:

"I may have a job and be in full, profitable employment, but since some individuals draw the dole, I too want the first part of my salary founded on Dole payments. Anything I make thereafter I will continue to enjoy".

It is bizarre. I never imagined so many people could have such an attitude of brazen entitlement.

Cody Pomeray

VinLieger wrote: »

Where are you getting this 23 million figure from?

€23 million is what the approximate cost to the state if, bizarrely, every single school entered the free fees scheme and ceased charging mandatory fees.

As I said, that could actually be quite a good deal for the state, considering the wonderful facilities in many such schools.

I think Blackrock college would make a fantastic cente for autistic children.

PRAF

According to the Indo there is a widening gap in access to third level education. Pupils in fee-charging schools and those who receive an all-Irish education are most likely to go straight to college from school. The others have much lower levels of tranisitioning into third level. In particular, it seems that those from disadvantaged areas are getting left behind.

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/widening-gap-in-twotier-school-system-is-revealed-29246471.html

I don't think it'll ever be possible to fully level the playing field. However, hopefully we can move towards a fairer system in years to come. In the case of disadvantaged areas, this may mean giving them more resources so that they can begin to close the gap

Duggys Housemate

The difference between the fee paying schools (66%) and the lowest level non-vocational schools(42%) is 20%.

Even the most disadvantaged schools send 24% of people to university ( which is distinguished from other 3rd level vocational courses). Back in the 80's that was the percentage which went to college. In the 70's it was 10%.

If the figures were 80% and 5% we would have real discrimination.

University should be for people of above average intelligence. If we force 70% of people into universities then you will need a university degree for McDonalds.

Zubeneschamali

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

University should be for people of above average intelligence.

Exactly: not just for children of people who can afford to send their kids to fee-charging tax-subsidized schools.

VinLieger

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The difference between the fee paying schools (66%) and the lowest level non-vocational schools(42%) is 20%.

Even the most disadvantaged schools send 24% of people to university ( which is distinguished from other 3rd level vocational courses). Back in the 80's that was the percentage which went to college. In the 70's it was 10%.

If the figures were 80% and 5% we would have real discrimination.

University should be for people of above average intelligence. If we force 70% of people into universities then you will need a university degree for McDonalds.

Private schooling does not = automatically intelligent

Duggys Housemate

VinLieger wrote: »

Private schooling does not = automatically intelligent

Whose strawman argument are you arguing against?

Clearly not by the way - since despite the advantages 34% don't get to University. However that's orthogonal to the argument that we have too many people at university.

Cody Pomeray

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Even the most disadvantaged schools send 24% of people to university ( which is distinguished from other 3rd level vocational courses).

You're making a balls of that


Higher education includes ITs and colleges. The article doesn't mention universities and the report doesn't distinguish universities from colleges or ITs.

Duggys Housemate

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're making a balls of that


Higher education includes ITs and colleges. The article doesn't mention universities and the report doesn't distinguish universities from colleges or ITs.

I include ITs in 3rd level. It said that after leaving cert 50% went to higher level and 24% beyond that to post leaving cert courses.

Cody Pomeray

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I include ITs in 3rd level. It said that after leaving cert 50% went to higher level and 24% beyond that to post leaving cert courses.

this is the 'balls' i was relating

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Even the most disadvantaged schools send 24% of people to university ( which is distinguished from other 3rd level vocational courses).

University should be for people of above average intelligence. If we force 70% of people into universities then you will need a university degree for McDonalds.

SupaNova2

The line repeated that nobody should have an educational advantage over the "working class" might as well be rephrased we should make society poorer.

Iwasfrozen

SupaNova2 wrote: »

The line repeated that nobody should have an educational advantage over the "working class" might as well be rephrased we should make society poorer.

Nope, the two ideas aren't even related.

PRAF

Nobody's arguing for bringing everyone down to the lowest level of educational attainment. That would clearly be ridiculous. There is, in my opinion, a strong argument for reducing the subsidy given to private schools. It isn't about banning anything, outlawing anything, or forcing anything to shut down. It's also not about dumbing down the system. It is simply about creating a level playing field (or at least a less unfair system) so that all young people have a decent opporunity of getting higher level education

SupaNova2

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope, the two ideas aren't even related.

Do you think the overall standard of education attained a population would be better by having less people attend private schools?

Cody Pomeray

PRAF wrote: »

It is simply about creating a level playing field (or at least a less unfair system) so that all young people have a decent opporunity of getting higher level education

I think that might be the motivation for some people (and fair play if it is and everything).

I don't mind so much that the playing field is not level. For every €x the Government spends on education, there will always be a businessman somewhere saying "your kid can get an advantage on the others for an extra €x"

Private schools will always have the advantage under any non-Swedish model.

We could at least not add insult to injury by asking the state to pay so much money toward that advantage.

SupaNova2

PRAF wrote: »

It isn't about... forcing anything to shut down. It's also not about dumbing down the system. It is simply about creating a level playing field (or at least a less unfair system) so that all young people have a decent opporunity of getting higher level education

Well this is exactly what removing the subsidy would do, force a number of schools to close and the students that attended/would have attended into a public school of generally lesser quality. And this idea of leveling the playing field doesn't make sense. The parents of those students that would be forced into the public system would have extra cash to put toward extra classes and grinds.

Some people will always have an advantage over others, forget level playing fields, the children of parents who work as teachers will have an advantage over the children of parents who work menial factory jobs, the children of parents who sacrifice holidays/cars/nights out etc to put their children through better education will have an advantage over those who don't, and yes the filthy rich will have an advantage over those on the lowest incomes.

Cody Pomeray

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Well this is exactly what removing the subsidy would do, force a number of schools to close and the students that attended/would have attended into a public school of generally lesser quality.

Well then just reduce the subsidy until an acceptable number of private schools are still buoyant.

The Department of Education/ Bord Snip reports suggest there is substantial wiggle room there.

Zubeneschamali

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Well this is exactly what removing the subsidy would do, force a number of schools to close and the students that attended/would have attended into a public school of generally lesser quality.

Why would they close instead of joining the free scheme, the way most schools which used to charge fees joined back when it was set up?

SupaNova2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why would they close instead of joining the free scheme, the way most schools which used to charge fees joined back when it was set up?

It would be interesting to know numbers on this? What is most and where does it come from?

nice_guy80

Private schooled children cost the government half of what its costs to send a child to public school. This is due to the extra parents choose to spend on their child in exchange for a better teacher ratio, better facilities, extra curriculars etc. So in reality since every child is entitled to free education through the taxes their parents pay these parents are actually subsidising the government and not the other way around.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong

no INDEPENDENT study has come to that conclusion (only the study carried out by the private schools themselves, which nobody else has seen)

nice_guy80

hfallada wrote: »

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

this is a fallacy

if numbers of students in the private sector decrease, then there'd be more money to fund public school places
simples

PRAF

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Well this is exactly what removing the subsidy would do, force a number of schools to close and the students that attended/would have attended into a public school of generally lesser quality. And this idea of leveling the playing field doesn't make sense. The parents of those students that would be forced into the public system would have extra cash to put toward extra classes and grinds.

If certain schools cannot survive as private schools without massive taxpayer subsidies then it is only right that they go back to the public system. Otherwise, joe taxpayer (inlcuding the 93% of parents whose kids go to public schools) is subsidising the 7% whose kids can go private.

I personally dislike grinds. They promote teaching to the exam, further embed the points race culture, and are the very antithesis of what real education should be about. However, I'd never propose a ban on them. I'd prefer if the public system was good enough (and the 3rd level entry process tweaked) so that rote learning was de-emphasised and therefore demand for grinds was lessened. In reality that will never happen but that's a debate for another day

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Some people will always have an advantage over others, forget level playing fields, the children of parents who work as teachers will have an advantage over the children of parents who work menial factory jobs, the children of parents who sacrifice holidays/cars/nights out etc to put their children through better education will have an advantage over those who don't, and yes the filthy rich will have an advantage over those on the lowest incomes.

I agree that there will always be some element of inequity in education, some element of 'unfairness'. However, given the unjust nature of that inequity it would be remiss of any govt to ignore it. If there will always be a natural advantage for the groups you mention, then why should the state make it worse by providing massive subsidies to a privileged elite.

Even if we were to ignore the justice and equality argument, there is a more fundamental point. One of the fundamental roles of any education system is to ensure that all kids fulfil their potential. This means we get a more educated and productive workforce. This in turn leads to a more efficient and productive economy. On what level is the current system justified if a whole swathe of the population are seriously disadvantaged when it comes to access to 3rd level education. The current system is akin to educational doping.

Wildlife Actor

nice_guy80 wrote: »

this is a fallacy

if numbers of students in the private sector decrease, then there'd be more money to fund public school places
simples

??

Surely the reason the numbers in the private schools fall is because they switch to public schools. Therefore there cannot be a saving.

If you're presenting that statement as a good outcome, it's one borne of envy, not economics.

Cody Pomeray

Love nor Money wrote: »

If you're presenting that statement as a good outcome, it's one borne of envy, not economics.

Why

The opposite of economically sound is not... envy

Wildlife Actor

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Why

The opposite of economically sound is not... envy

I'm not saying it's the opposite to economically sound. But economics justifies change. Envy does not.

Cody Pomeray

Love nor Money wrote: »

I'm not saying it's the opposite to economically sound. But economics justifies change. Envy does not.

No but where are you getting a motivation of "envy" from specifically?

fly_agaric

Love nor Money wrote: »

??
I'm not saying it's the opposite to economically sound. But economics justifies change. Envy does not.

I dunno, maybe recognising injustice can begin with a little envy [of say, the superior facilities of state-topped-up private schools compared to your average fully state funded (ex. semi voluntary assistance from parents) school!]

Anyway we (the Irish) seem to like this concept of "special" citizens getting state services & benefits which they can improve by adding their own money (see the heath system),

SupaNova2

PRAF wrote: »

If certain schools cannot survive as private schools without massive taxpayer subsidies then it is only right that they go back to the public system. Otherwise, joe taxpayer (inlcuding the 93% of parents whose kids go to public schools) is subsidising the 7% whose kids can go private.

Who is subsidizing who isn't so clear, we agree that a lot of people who send their children to private schools are well off, so in a progressive tax system they are already subsidizing the less well off by contributing more tax.

Cody Pomeray

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Who is subsidizing who isn't so clear, we agree that a lot of people who send their children to private schools are well off, so in a progressive tax system they are already subsidizing the less well off by contributing more tax.

That's debatable actually, but nevertheless, what's the point?

Even if high income earners are ultimately subsidizing the less well off, then I guess that's just Government's policy - just like tax compliance, law abidance, and all that other good stuff everyone loves.

You don't get to use "hey I'm compliant, gimme a free ride on stuff" as a valid argument.

PRAF

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Who is subsidizing who isn't so clear, we agree that a lot of people who send their children to private schools are well off, so in a progressive tax system they are already subsidizing the less well off by contributing more tax.

Yes, richer people generally pay more taxes (well those on the PAYE system do anyway). However, you could argue that they also benefit more. Think of spending on defence and policing. Defending the country and defending property rights benefits everyone. However, the rich have more assets and thus have more to gain from govt spending on those areas. Ditto tax breaks for private pensions, the rich benefit more.

Also, while our income tax system is largely progressive, the other heads of tax are much less so. Our high rates of VAT, excise duty, and various stealth taxes all disproprotionally affect the poor.