Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How would Libertarianism work in an Irish context?
Options
Comments
-
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.0 -
I'd argue that economics, whilst very important, isn't and shouldn't be the only factor in determining education policy.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.0 -
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"?0 -
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.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"?0 -
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
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?0 -
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.Permabear wrote:This post had been deleted.
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).0 -
How could one "test" an entire education system in a specific country? Who tested the current system in its entirety before we implemented it?KyussBishop wrote: »an entirely experimental/untested education system0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
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.This post had been deleted.
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).
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.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.
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).
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?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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.Anyone care to address the right to education point?
So maybe we could start a thread on the nature of rights if you're interested.0 -
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.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
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.0 -
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?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?0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
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?
It's part of this discussion. How "libertarian" or privatized education would work in practice includes, in the former case, renouncing the constitution wholesale, in the latter either removing or amending Article 42. I think I'm correct in saying this? The thread title "How would Libertarianism work in an Irish context?"
The Constitutional right is of fundamental importance in understanding how education is conceptualised and deployed under the current system. Is this to be ignored in favour of newspaper soundbites about a "failing" system? I'll get to those later, in any event.
And while I'm at it, what is education for under a libertarian scheme? Another very important question if we're to understand the proposed alternative.0 -
You're appealing to rights in an effort to bolster your argument. I disagree with your conception of a right in the first place. For us to solve that issue would involve dragging this thread way of the topic of education in Ireland. Can a mod confirm this?It's part of this discussion. How "libertarian" or privatized education would work in practice includes, in the former case, renouncing the constitution wholesale, in the latter either removing or amending Article 42. I think I'm correct in saying this? The thread title "How would Libertarianism work in an Irish context?"
The Constitutional right of fundamental importance understanding how education is conceptualised and deployed under the current system. Is this to be ignored in favour of newspaper soundbites about a "failing" system? I'll get to those later, in any event.
And while I'm at it, what is education for under a libertarian scheme? Another very important question if we're to understand the proposed alternative.0 -
You're appealing to rights in an effort to bolster your argument. I disagree with your conception of a right in the first place. For us to solve that issue would involve dragging this thread way of the topic of education in Ireland. Can a mod confirm this?
And you're trying to ignore them to bolster yours.
The right to education is the cornerstone of the system as it exists, and to conveniently overlook the libertarian approach in that regard is to render this thread essentially worthless. Either you want to discuss the issue, or you don't.
You can't talk about education in Ireland without looking at the constitutional framework. If you aren't familiar I'll be happy to lead you through it, as best I can. You can't ignore this - an obligation on the state to provide education is contained at Article 42.
We don't need to get too far into it, but we do need an explanation as to why anyone should vote against a right to education.
Also, can anyone tell me what education is for, by libertarian logic?0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post had been deleted.
The constitutional right underpins the education system, as it stands. This is not about a general theory of rights, it's about the specific right to education. If you want to understand what we're dealing with, then it needs to be explored. If you don't, that's entirely up to you, but it would tend to undercut your position somewhat.
I'm going to address it once I get the chance to do it justice. Again, if you want to ignore it, that's up to yourself, but do not even attempt to get all indignant about straw-men at me if/when I have to surmise your position. The idea that people are trying to get the mods to exclude something as fundamental as the right to education from a discussion on education? Is this what it's come to?0 -
You're appealing to rights in an effort to bolster your argument. I disagree with your conception of a right in the first place. For us to solve that issue would involve dragging this thread way of the topic of education in Ireland. Can a mod confirm this?
From the OP: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?
I'd have thought education was very much on topic. Maybe concentrate on the rural issues rather than a wider debate.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Ah this thread has really taken off since I last replied.
Okey, the voucher thing, while interesting, seems to be primarily an unrestricted semi-private system; it doesn't seem quite like the fully private system Permabear and others intend (though it does raise some issues that could be analogous).Channel Zero wrote: »This post had been deleted.
Much of the schools here in Ireland (around half I think), are not too dissimilar; half are (I believe) semi-private (i.e. state subsidized), though not nearly in the same sense as the voucher system, as the government here has much more control on the semi-private schools.
A wider question, for private school proponents: Should private schools be forced to accept pupils, no matter what their background? (as public schools currently are)
A big issue I'm reading up on with private schools, is the promotion of social/ethnic segregation, and 'creaming-off' easier to teach students, with the more expensive to teach students with disabilities or behavioral issues sometimes left in the cold; not portraying this as an outcome of private education, just wonder whether the system proposed would account for this?
No not at all; philanthropists and wealthy businesses, with an interest in expanded private education, could team up with researchers to create an international association, which would be in charge of funding and monitoring the implementation of private education, in a country which is lacking good alternatives.Permabear wrote:This post has been deleted.
It's more about testing it in a real world situation, to see how robust it is and to look for unforeseen consequences and pitfalls, than to test it in comparison to public education (though that would be a part of the focus too, just less so).
You're misunderstanding what I mean by testing. I'm saying the model of private education you propose needs to be tested before it is implemented wholesale, to find out how effective it is, and where its faults are. Basic research and testing.Permabear wrote:This post has been deleted.
You seem to be saying that we can't test it like that, and the only way to find out is to switchover completely and see how it goes, putting our faith in the free markets. That's not good enough, it completely discounts the myriad of potential unforeseen consequences, we need to have some real world example to study first, before we implement something like that.
Not too far off half of them are not (if the statistics I saw are correct); would these be sold off or rented to private interests?Permabear wrote:Most of these "public" educational facilities in Ireland are actually privately owned, by various churches. So it would be up to the property owners (i.e., the churches) to decide what to do with them.
That's....a very generous point of view towards private education. You see nothing that can possibly go wrong with its implementation? Not even potential problems? (not even specific isolated instances where problems might arise?)Permabear wrote:This post has been deleted.
If all of the union teachers went on strike, do you think there would be enough teachers outside of unions to staff all of the schools? Seems very likely to me, that the private schools would have to compromise in the face of a strike.Permabear wrote:If the government relinquished its educational monopoly, I can't imagine that too many schools would be eager to hire teachers with such extortionate wage demands. We have a huge surplus of teaching labor in Ireland at the moment. Unemployed and contract teachers (who are, in fact, victims of unions' wage-fixing) would probably be the first to transition to a private system. If unionized teachers wanted jobs, they would see the value in abandoning the unions.
How can you make this happen? Is there any precedent of this?Permabear wrote:This post has been deleted.
If you lose one monopoly (either unions or companies), but not both at the same time, either the corporate monopoly is free to exploit workers, or the union monopoly is free to exploit companies.
How do you do away with both at the same time?
I agree with much of this, yes, but why would it fall apart when you take out the government component and transition to private? It seems like there would be an enormous, well-established monopolistic union in place, which could exploit the private schools.Permabear wrote:This post has been deleted.
Yes in principle/theory it's all great, but what I mean when I ask "What problems do you see with the free market?", is what potential problems do you see in its implementation i.e. what problems may be encountered in the real world? (I don't mean in its ideal form, but ways people may be able to take advantage of the free market etc.)Permabear wrote:This post has been deleted.
Do you see any potential problems from it at all, including from the transition to it?
Do you think private education is more politically achievable, and thus, faster to bring about though?Permabear wrote:This post has been deleted.
Like the point I made in a previous post:
There are vested interests in opposition to reform of the current system, and government lethargy too, but a wholesale switch to private would be monumentally more difficult to push (including much of the same opposition to reform), and would take even longer to come about (if it could happen at all).KyussBishop wrote: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.
Sorry but, just like economics, if a completely different topic is core to the principals underlying your argument and the current topic, it is valid to bring it into the discussion (unless you also want to rule out your arguments based on it).Valmont wrote:You're appealing to rights in an effort to bolster your argument. I disagree with your conception of a right in the first place. For us to solve that issue would involve dragging this thread way of the topic of education in Ireland. Can a mod confirm this?
To rule-out stuff like that from the thread, allows you to use arguments that are potentially flawed in a fundamental way, without challenge; that would not be not a balanced debate.
On the discussion of the constitution:
Seeing as it would require a referendum to change, that pretty much solidifies the significant public challenge of switching over to a private system.0 -
Advertisement
-
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?
What's so great about Finland's system? Sure it's the best but the best just isn't that good. Take it's reading score from Pisa 2009 for instance. Finland achieved a score of 536 which is 8% better than Ireland's score of 496. Sounds good until you remember that a quarter of 15 year old Irish males are functionally illiterate. Finland also beats Ireland by 11% and 9% in maths and science respectively. Again not a great performance considering how shoddy our education system is.
Why shouldn't we be hostile towards public education? Not only is it useless but it costs a huge amount to maintain and there wasn't even any need for it in the first place.KyussBishop wrote: »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.
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.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.
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.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).
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.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.
They are beginning a war on these institutions by making those institutes meet quality standards. If this happens the cost of attending these institutes will rise. Those institutes will then go out of business and the students attending them will miss out on a third level education.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.
I also stated that the education systems in the first world are pretty poor as well.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).
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.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.
You didn't say that though. You implied that because a child went to a charity school they were more likely to become a criminal than to get a PhD. You then gave no reason why that would be. In your follow up you then give no reason why legitimate avenues for advancement would be closed off.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.
It's hardly naive. Ireland is a very rich country, even the poorest of parents would be well able to provide their children with a full education.And this will only be made worse by removing all childrens' right to education.
What do you mean by worse? How exactly is it a bad thing that parents will have a large influence on their child's life?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.
So what if a two tier system is created? The question is whether children do better or worse under a market system. I also need to point out that England and Wales' reform was just a Government scheme, it wasn't an actual market reform.
I know that higher education improves social mobility. So what? I have already shown that dozens of private colleges in the States, including all the members of the Ivy League, have a needs blind based admission system. This means that it doesn't matter how poor your family is, if you're smart enough then you can attend the best colleges on the planet.
I've seen two chemicals react. It isn't that special. I doubt my life or my exam results would have been any different if I didn't see them react.Which leads me to another key question - what is education for?
I think the purpose of education is to produce well rounded students. Although this is a different view to the one of the Government which believes the purpose of education is to do well in the Leaving Cert. What do you think education is 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:
I would change this by having a referendum and encouraging people to vote to change the constitution to something that would be more compatible with libertarian principles.
The problem with this model is that it is useless and there is zero need for it.0
Advertisement