Access to Education

K-9 · 02-05-2013 12:10AM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

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

Not necessarily, the €4,000 a student a year saved, could be diverted to the schools who bear the brunt of any changes. I doubt the full state subvention would be cut, even if it was halved, I doubt that would mean 50% of students would move. Parents would cut back on expenditure to try and pay for it, if they see it as so worthwhile.

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)

They'd just pay the usual subvention, which is a small proportion of the private school subsidy anyway. Any unemployed teachers from the semi private sector could be employed by the state, they pay 80% or so of teachers wages anyway. Some infrastructure investment might need to be fast tracked, some positives there too.

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

Well yes if we cut all state subventions, but at least we'd have a truly private system. I've no problem with parents paying for all of their childrens education if they so wish.

An Coilean · 02-05-2013 12:12AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

They should have the right to buy their kids a better education if they want, the state on the other hand should have no part in spending public money to pay for a better education for some children than others.

The wealthy have as much of a right to a free education as everyone else, they do not have a right to state support for a private education however.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 02-05-2013 12:12AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

So you would ban middle class families from buying grinds for their children aswell I guess?

I have to say all you are going to do is prevent parents from providing the best education they can/want to give to their children all the while lowering the overall standard of education for everyone else.

And all this at an increased cost to the taxpayer. if thats what you believe is right so be it, but I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

And yes same, used to know it off by heart:)

p1akuw47h5r3it · 02-05-2013 12:14AM

PRAF wrote: »

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.

No it's not. I've outlined in that post why it's not. Can you in anyway prove the system is "rigged" in favor of the elite?

Iwasfrozen · 02-05-2013 12:14AM

An Coilean wrote: »

They should have the right to buy their kids a better education if they want, the state should have no part in spending public money in buying their children a better education than their working class counterparts however.

The wealthy have as much of a right to a free education as everyone else, they do not have a right to state support for a private education however.

Well yes I should have phrased that better. I 100% agree.

K-9 · 02-05-2013 12:15AM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Everyone, so even the super wealthy??

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

:pac:

Wait a second here, I normally pay little attention to the taglines posters use, but you've just used a Communist Russia video. That's fine, very funny, but I find a poster with a libertarian tagline arguing for retaining state subvention in private education, comedy genius.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 02-05-2013 12:17AM

K-9 wrote: »

Wait a second here, I normally pay little attention to the taglines posters use, but you've just used a Communist Russia video. That's fine, very funny, but I find a poster with a libertarian tagline arguing for retaining state subvention in private education, comedy genius.

I like the tune, and used to study Russian. Another poster linked to a North Korean video hence why I linked that one.

Edit: I would be in favor of a completely private school system i.e. no state schools at all. However this is ireland and thus will (probably) never happen. The next best thing is to thus lower the amount of government spending, in which this case will increase if the subvention is removed.

Iwasfrozen · 02-05-2013 12:17AM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

So you would ban middle class families from buying grinds for their children aswell I guess?

I have to say all you are going to do is prevent parents from providing the best education they can/want to give to their children all the while lowering the overall standard of education for everyone else.

And all this at an increased cost to the taxpayer. if thats what you believe is right so be it, but I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

And yes same, used to know it off by heart:)

No. And not only because I'd be banning myself from a very profitable part time job.

Why would we be giving an overall worse education? Provided the teacher: student ratio stays constant the level of education should not decrease.

Yes it will cost the taxpayer money in the short term but in the long term social mobility has economic benefits.

K-9 · 02-05-2013 12:18AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

Exactly, I've no problem with private schools offering better levels of education as long as the state doesn't pay for it.

Iwasfrozen · 02-05-2013 12:20AM

K-9 wrote: »

Wait a second here, I normally pay little attention to the taglines posters use, but you've just used a Communist Russia video. That's fine, very funny, but I find a poster with a libertarian tagline arguing for retaining state subvention in private education, comedy genius.

Join the revolution comrade. Mayday is over but the fun has just begun!

PRAF · 02-05-2013 12:23AM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

So you would ban middle class families from buying grinds for their children aswell I guess?

I have to say all you are going to do is prevent parents from providing the best education they can/want to give to their children all the while lowering the overall standard of education for everyone else.

And all this at an increased cost to the taxpayer. if thats what you believe is right so be it, but I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

And yes same, used to know it off by heart:)

Grinds - awful IMO. Teaching to the exam only, they are the opposite of what real knowledge and education is all about. they succeed in getting less able, but financially better off kids into college over more intelligent, but poorer kids. For that reason I'm not in favour of them.

I wouldn't ban them though. This isn't some totalitarian state were living in here.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 02-05-2013 12:27AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No. And not only because I'd be banning myself from a very profitable part time job.

Why would we be giving an overall worse education? Provided the teacher: student ratio stays constant the level of education should not decrease.

Yes it will cost the taxpayer money in the short term but in the long term social mobility has economic benefits.

But you said you believe that middle class parents should not be able to buy their children and educational advantage over working class parents...

It would cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money, which we simply don't have. It's unworkable. And I'd dispute the social mobility aswell:

"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."

Having no or very few private schools will not change this. Whether a person goes to college tends to be down to the importance they and their family place on 3rd level education, not the type of school they go to.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 02-05-2013 12:31AM

PRAF wrote: »

Grinds - awful IMO. Teaching to the exam only, they are the opposite of what real knowledge and education is all about. they succeed in getting less able, but financially better off kids into college over more intelligent, but poorer kids. For that reason I'm not in favour of them.

I wouldn't ban them though. This isn't some totalitarian state were living in here.

Well thats more due to the system we have with regards getting into University, I still don't believe that the "elite" intentionally forced this situation to arise so as to only benefit them however.

An Coilean · 02-05-2013 12:32AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No. And not only because I'd be banning myself from a very profitable part time job.

Why would we be giving an overall worse education? Provided the teacher: student ratio stays constant the level of education should not decrease.

Yes it will cost the taxpayer money in the short term but in the long term social mobility has economic benefits.

I'm not sure it would cost the tax payer more, not substantianly more anyway.

The simple argument you often hear is that through paying fees these parents contribute X, and that amount X is money the government don't have to pay, but that money is not used to replace government money, it is for the most part extra money the schools have to hire aditional teachers and pay for the other various features that make these schools attractive. If all these schools became Public the state would not have to stump up for the X amount that is currently provided by the parents.

If support for private schools was removed a large amount of them would be forced into the Public system, if this happens I am not convinced that the state would face a huge bill, the state already pays the teachers to the same extent as in other schools, the formerly private school would loose its additional teachers, the wadge bill for teachers would not go up.

The state would have to take on the bill for running the schools that enter the public system and pay bills like heating etc, but at the same time not all Private schools would go public meaning a saving on those that remain Private.

You may see an increase in overall expenditure but in relative terms a miniscule increase in comparision to the total education budget and even small fry compared to the increase in expenditure required due to population growth anyway.

Iwasfrozen · 02-05-2013 12:32AM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

But you said you believe that middle class parents should be able to buy their children and educational advantage over working class parents...

As PRAF above me said we aren't living in a totalitarian state. What do you want us to do? Have the garda monitor people so they don't get grinds? I don't think middle class children should get a better education then working class children but a bit of common sense is needed.

It would cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money, which we simply don't have. It's unworkable. And I'd dispute the social mobility aswell:

Hardly huge, and what ever the cost is it's worth it for a more equal society.

Having no or very few private schools will not change this. Whether a person goes to college tends to be down to the importance they and their family place on 3rd level education, not the type of school they go to.

Surely the ability to go to college depends on your CAO points. And private schools give a better education and have a higher average student CAO point score then public schools.

Iwasfrozen · 02-05-2013 12:35AM

An Coilean wrote: »

I'm not sure it would cost the tax payer more, not substantianly more anyway.

The simple argument you often hear is that through paying fees these parents contribute X, and that amount X is money the government don't have to pay, but that money is not used to replace government money, it is for the most part extra money the schools have to hire aditional teachers and pay for the other various features that make these schools attractive. If all these schools became Public the state would not have to stump up for the X amount that is currently provided by the parents.

If support for private schools was removed a large amount of them would be forced into the Public system, if this happens I am not convinced that the state would face a huge bill, the state already pays the teachers to the same extent as in other schools, the formerly private school would loose its additional teachers, the wadge bill for teachers would not go up.

The state would have to take on the bill for running the schools that enter the public system and pay bills like heating etc, but at the same time not all Private schools would go public meaning a saving on those that remain Private.

You may see an increase in overall expenditure but in relative terms a miniscule increase in comparision to the total education budget and even small fry compared to the increase in expenditure required due to population growth anyway.

Actually that's a very good point I hadn't thought of that. So even if the government cuts subsidies we shouldn't expect a huge increase in government expenditure anyway.

An Coilean · 02-05-2013 12:39AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually that's a very good point I hadn't thought of that. So even if the government cuts subsidies we shouldn't expect a huge increase in government expenditure anyway.

No reason to believe so, the state already pays one of the major costs. For teachers wadges there would be no increase for schools becoming public and a saving on those remaining private.

There probably would be an increase in overall expenditure but certainly not a huge one.

K-9 · 02-05-2013 12:39AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually that's a very good point I hadn't thought of that. So even if the government cuts subsidies we shouldn't expect a huge increase in government expenditure anyway.

I very much doubt it myself. This "it will cost the state double" point keeps coming up, but I haven't seen the actual figures for it. It just seems to be one of those statements that are just accepted as fact.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 02-05-2013 12:41AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As PRAF above me said we aren't living in a totalitarian state. What do you want us to do? Have the garda monitor people so they don't get grinds? I don't think middle class children should get a better education then working class children but a bit of common sense is needed.

Hardly huge, and what ever the cost is it's worth it for a more equal society.

Surely the ability to go to college depends on your CAO points. And private schools give a better education and have a higher average student CAO point score then public schools.

I don't know your the one who said it not me.

It would be huge, you'd have to build more schools and then pay their running costs for as long as the state owns them.

Your ability to go to college depends on how much value you put on a 3rd level education. As I've said, there are a number of programmes put in place to encourage people from disadvantaged areas to go to college (free fees, access programmes etc.) yet the numbers going has not substantially increased.

Now I don't necessarily believe there is anything wrong with not wanting to go to college, my point is that getting rid of the subvention will simply see more cost lumped onto the taxpayer, a drop in education standards as a whole and this equal society you envision will not come to pass.

PRAF · 02-05-2013 12:42AM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

No it's not. I've outlined in that post why it's not. Can you in anyway prove the system is "rigged" in favor of the elite?

Yes, the proof is our high levels of inequality and low social mobility relative to more progressive and better performing countries like the Scandinavians.

Education - 3rd level dominated by students from fee paying schools

Professions - doctors, lawyers, etc all have restrictive and anti competitive practices which favour the encumbant elites

Legal/justice - white collar crims hardly ever convicted

Regulators - lax regulation in financial services which rewards millionaire bankers taking excessive risk and punishes ordinary joe soaps who foot the bill

Iwasfrozen · 02-05-2013 12:47AM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I don't know your the one who said it not me.

It would be huge, you'd have to build more schools and then pay their running costs for as long as the state owns them.

Your ability to go to college depends on how much value you put on a 3rd level education. As I've said, there are a number of programmes put in place to encourage people from disadvantaged areas to go to college (free fees, access programmes etc.) yet the numbers going has not substantially increased.

Now I don't necessarily believe there is anything wrong with not wanting to go to college, my point is that getting rid of the subvention will simply see more cost lumped onto the taxpayer, a drop in education standards as a whole and this equal society you envision will not come to pass.

It wouldn't be huge it would be minnow at most and a few of the posters above me have articulated why.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 02-05-2013 12:48AM

PRAF wrote: »

Yes, the proof is our high levels of inequality and low social mobility relative to more progressive and better performing countries like the Scandinavians.

Education - 3rd level dominated by students from fee paying schools

It's not dominated by fee paying students but how in ever if it were true I'd say it's more to do with the importance these students and their families place on a 3rd level education as opposed to the simple fact that they went to a fee paying school.

Professions - doctors, lawyers, etc all have restrictive and anti competitive practices which favour the encumbant elites

Like what? WHat is stopping a working class student from becoming a doctor or lawyer?

Legal/justice - white collar crimes hardly ever convicted

This is because they are harder to prosecute, however certainly a lot lot more needs to be done.

Regulators - lax regulation in financial services which rewards millionaire bankers taking excessive risk and punishes ordinary joe soaps who foot the bill

How is this relevant to our education system?

K-9 · 02-05-2013 12:49AM

As for building schools, the sate already pays out a huge amount in renting out prefabs, extra numbers from private schools would bring forward investment in actual concrete new classrooms, which are a long term investment, replacing medium term rentals on prefabs, another saving made. Many schools are crying out for new classrooms, the capital investment could well be totally offset by cutting out prefab rentals over a period of 10 years or so.

The new influx of students could make it economically viable beyond reasonable doubt to invest, and save expensive prefab rentals. Again that's assuming a 50% cut in subvention would mean a 50% drop in private school numbers from 26,000 to 13,000. I don't believe it would. If the private system is that good, an extra €40 a week will not mean halving private school numbers. It might mean less discretionary spending on the extras, which might be the real worry here.

Then again the state has to pay for things like special education, stuff like that, something the private sector doesn't have to worry about.

PRAF · 02-05-2013 12:51AM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I don't know your the one who said it not me.

It would be huge, you'd have to build more schools and then pay their running costs for as long as the state owns them.

Your ability to go to college depends on how much value you put on a 3rd level education. As I've said, there are a number of programmes put in place to encourage people from disadvantaged areas to go to college (free fees, access programmes etc.) yet the numbers going has not substantially increased.

Now I don't necessarily believe there is anything wrong with not wanting to go to college, my point is that getting rid of the subvention will simply see more cost lumped onto the taxpayer, a drop in education standards as a whole and this equal society you envision will not come to pass.

Look at Finland, very few private schools yet they have the best education system in Europe. Also much cheaper than you'd think

An Coilean · 02-05-2013 12:54AM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I don't know your the one who said it not me.

It would be huge, you'd have to build more schools and then pay their running costs for as long as the state owns them.

Why would you need to build more schools? (Aside from the schools that have to be built anyway due to population growth) The schools already exist, they would simply be forced to become public schools.

Yes you would have to pay the running costs of the schools that go public, the state already pays one of the major running costs of these schools.
We would have to see how much it would cost the state to run these schools as a normal public school but I can't see it being unmanagable.

Also why would there be a drop in education standards? In those specific schools maybe, but across the public system as a whole there is no reason to expectg a drop in standards, indeed the aditional teachers in those private schools would be released to work in ordinary schools.

PRAF · 02-05-2013 12:57AM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

It's not dominated by fee paying students but how in ever if it were true I'd say it's more to do with the importance these students and their families place on a 3rd level education as opposed to the simple fact that they went to a fee paying school.

Like what? WHat is stopping a working class student from becoming a doctor or lawyer?

This is because they are harder to prosecute, however certainly a lot lot more needs to be done.

How is this relevant to our education system?

All of what I mentioned are examples of the elite protecting themselves to the detriment of wider society. You claim that educational outcomes can never be equal because education, particularly 3rd level, is fundamentally linked to your social class. Unfortunately you are right, inequality is self perpetuating unless something is done about it. Cutting subsidies for private schools seems like a good place to start to make the system a little fairer for everyone

K-9 · 02-05-2013 01:05AM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Your ability to go to college depends on how much value you put on a 3rd level education. As I've said, there are a number of programmes put in place to encourage people from disadvantaged areas to go to college (free fees, access programmes etc.) yet the numbers going has not substantially increased.

I completely agree free third level fees didn't add that much value to the 3rd level, didn't address much in disadvantaged areas that targetted initiatives couldn't have accomplished anyway. Seemed to add plenty of more cars to university and college car parks, but not much else!

Which is why I find it odd you are arguing for retaining state subvention and not arguing for private sector education to stand by its own two feet.

Cody Pomeray · 02-05-2013 05:05PM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

The next best thing is to thus lower the amount of government spending, in which this case will increase if the subvention is removed.

Can you explain this comment using specific numbers, or otherwise substantiate that?

Certainly, if one removed state funding of teachers in fee charging schools (lets not add to the charade by calling these private schools), these schools may have to do a number of things or a combination thereof:

[1] cut spending spending on senior management salaries and benefits in kind [2] raise revenues by private activities - functions and events, for example. [3] admit a slightly weakened pupil teacher ratio [4] simply absorb the increase from their own reserves or discretionary income [5] charge higher tuition fees
Note that charging higher tuition fees is only one option. But, lets be extremists and imagine it is the only option available:

So, in the extreme event of the latter policy being undertaken alone, Colm McCarthy [An Bord Snip Nua reports, Volume II - Paper 6 – Education and Science] has estimated a resultant increase of fees of the order of 21%.

Obviously phased in over time, this would eventually amount to an increase of €500/year in some schools, with the extreme examples seeing an increase of €2000 per annum. Significant - certainly - but not catastrophic for a lot of families.

Lets go even further. A recent Department of Education report finds no evidence of any likelihood of a significant switch to the public system in the event of the exchequer no longer paying for teachers in fee paying schools.

The Report finds that not one single school would lose more than 60% of its present discretionary income.

The 4 worst affected schools in the state would still have a minimum discretionary income of between €145,000 and €335,000. Maybe a few of them would move over to the public system. So we may be looking at about 4 casualties.

So please, tell me where you are getting your figures.

Zubeneschamali · 02-05-2013 05:36PM

No, what most of them would do is drop fees, fire any surplus staff, and apply for capitation grants.

So the taxpayer would be on the hook for the running of these schools, not just the bulk of their teacher salaries.

The few remaining truly obnoxious elite schools could double their fees and become super elite.

An Coilean · 02-05-2013 05:40PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, what most of them would do is drop fees, fire any surplus staff, and apply for capitation grants.

How do you know?

Access to Education

Comments