Shutting down private schools

KyussBishop

Read an article with an interesting viewpoint towards private education (mainly in UK) today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/10/michael-gove-private-school-social-justice

Basically, the author supports the shutting down of private schools, which would force wealthy parents to send their kids to public schools rather than being able to send them to private schools, thus preventing the societal segregation and imbalance in educational opportunities that creates.

If those parents are unhappy with the public education system, they (who are more likely to have better political connections due to wealth) would have to fight for reform of the system for everyone, and it would go some way to balancing educational opportunities between the rich and the rest of the population.

Note that, as a practical matter, this would not mean shutting down semi-private schools, presumably just forcibly bringing private schools under the same umbrella of obligations as semi-private (and perhaps hoisting additional restrictions on semi-private schools).


It's an interesting idea; I'm not a big fan of public schools in their current form, as there are a lot of problems with the system at various levels, so I'm not sold on the idea of shutting down private schools.
The idea of it though, is that there would be a greater impetus to reform and improve the public system, and thus those problems would (hopefully) get resolved faster.

It seems also that the state already pays the salaries of private school teachers, forking over €100 million a year to private schools, so forcing them into a semi-private role and compensating the additional expenditure on that with higher taxes on the rich, seems a fair alternative (where it seems quite unfair that the population is subsidizing more exclusive education in fee paying schools right now).

It would be interesting to hear a discussion on the wider benefits/pitfalls of this; it seems clear that private schools automatically create a certain level of social segregation and an imbalance in opportunities, so it provides benefits there, but what are the general pitfalls of the idea, and is the cost upon the small percentage of the population affected by those pitfalls, worth the benefits to wider society?

silverharp

my god, will the attempts at social engeneering never cease. Like it or not if I had to send my kids to an inner city school I'd home school or move country first. Even if private schools were somehow closed down it would just intensify wealthy ghettos where the catchment areas would be exclusive to wealthy people.

FreudianSlippers

How can you force a private entity to close its business? If the answer is that they get some state support, then wouldn't some schools turn to a fee-paying only system and thus make themselves even more of an elitist institution?

D-Generate

I would be overwhelmingly against this idea. With the present system where parents can choose where to send their kids it allows integration to take place at a community level rather than a school level. If it reverted to a system where kids had to attend the nearest school in the catchment area you would achieve integration at neither level. Families that could afford it would simply relocate to an area with a better school and as such create segregation at a community level.

KyussBishop

silverharp wrote: »

my god, will the attempts at social engeneering never cease. Like it or not if I had to send my kids to an inner city school I'd home school or move country first. Even if private schools were somehow closed down it would just intensify wealthy ghettos where the catchment areas would be exclusive to wealthy people.

Social engineering is an unusual term to put on it; all (or most) of law fits under the term of social engineering for instance, so it's a very broad term. If it's applied here as a criticism, it would need a bit more description.

In what way would closing private schools, create the wealthy ghetto type situation you describe there?

D-Generate wrote: »

I would be overwhelmingly against this idea. With the present system where parents can choose where to send their kids it allows integration to take place at a community level rather than a school level. If it reverted to a system where kids had to attend the nearest school in the catchment area you would achieve integration at neither level. Families that could afford it would simply relocate to an area with a better school and as such create segregation at a community level.

Well, the general idea of it isn't to lock people into picking schools from a certain area, just closing/assimilating private schools; I don't think a catchment area type situation with limited choice is a necessary hand-in-hand part of this, don't see why people couldn't try to get into a further-off school.

Even though some schools will naturally be better than others, demand will limit enrollment places, thus so long as the selection process is fair and non-discriminatory I don't see an immediate problem (though have not considered this aspect in detail yet).

KyussBishop

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

How can you force a private entity to close its business? If the answer is that they get some state support, then wouldn't some schools turn to a fee-paying only system and thus make themselves even more of an elitist institution?

The private schools would more be assimilated into the public system (like semi-private ones are), and would be subject to the same rules as semi-private schools.

I don't know if semi-private schools are free to reject students or require fees (and in general, I don't know what their extra liberties are in relation to public schools), so it may result in additional restrictions on semi-private schools as well, to enforce non-discrimination and possibly limit fees.

The fees thing is an interesting aspect of this: What is the current status of public/semi-private schools, when it comes to accepting/requiring fees?
The ideal would be no fees (thus equal opportunity for everyone in the area of the school), but I'm curious how the system currently is in that regard.

donaghs

silverharp wrote: »

my god, will the attempts at social engeneering never cease. Like it or not if I had to send my kids to an inner city school I'd home school or move country first.

Come on, Belvedere College isn't that bad!

I don't think "inner city" is a particular problem in Irish education? Rather there tends to be badly performing schools/pupils in lower income areas, mostly in lower income suburbs.

I think the point of the article was merely that all schools would be state-run or partly so to create an equal field, which would lead to the more concerned parents demanding better standards in the state-education sector.

In theory I think its a good idea. I dont think it would work in practice. It fear it would lead to a lowering of standards across the board. And as earlier poster said, schools in better-off areas will tend to be more successfull and then have a greater demand for pupils, leading to the neglect of schools in poorer areas. What then, to fix that, an American style "busing" systtem where they do force you to go to a particular school? Even if it does mean getting a bus to the other side of town and back every day?

Earlier social-engineering ideologues in the UK attempting to destroy the Grammer School system and replace everything with "Comprehensive" education. Most people would say it was a well-intentioned idea but a failure - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_System.

KyussBishop

KyussBishop wrote: »

Even though some schools will naturally be better than others, demand will limit enrollment places, thus so long as the selection process is fair and non-discriminatory I don't see an immediate problem (though have not considered this aspect in detail yet).

Public schools non-discriminatory in Ireland?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78451490&postcount=12

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78486455&postcount=10

Among the methods he celebrated, it has "aggressively recruited, and generously remunerated, talented individuals from a range of backgrounds". In other words, it has cherry-picked teachers from the state sector. Without any apparent embarrassment, he then went on to insist that the key distinction between good schools and bad ones is "effective teaching", which "can make a difference of a whole additional year of progress to poor pupils". In other words: if pupils fail, according to Gove, it's because they have bad teachers, yet he celebrates a system that reserves the best teachers for the children of the rich

So headhunting should be abolished? Teachers aren't entitled as much as anyone else to take a higher paid job if they want? They should be forced into lower paid jobs in the public schools because he says so?

One of the comments on the article sums it up:

how will you stop kids receiving 'private' education from parents, parents' friends, family, paid-for private tutors? So, instead of shutting private schools - funny how 'liberals' like to ban things, isn't it? - why don't you ensure that state schools attract all those who now send their kids privately?

Forcing all the children into poorer education while people sit around waiting for the govt to cop on when they can't attract the best teachers? Drag everyone down to the worst level?
Appalling idea

KyussBishop

donaghs wrote: »

In theory I think its a good idea. I dont think it would work in practice. It fear it would lead to a lowering of standards across the board. And as earlier poster said, schools in better-off areas will tend to be more successfull and then have a greater demand for pupils, leading to the neglect of schools in poorer areas. What then, to fix that, an American style "busing" systtem where they do force you to go to a particular school? Even if it does mean getting a bus to the other side of town and back every day?

Earlier social-engineering ideologues in the UK attempting to destroy the Grammer School system and replace everything with "Comprehensive" education. Most people would say it was a well-intentioned idea but a failure - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_System.

Why would schools in better off areas be more successful though? Would that be down to fees or donations to those schools?
If so, that could be curtailed to an extent; it's part of the reason I'm curious what the current situation is for public/semi-private, regarding fees/donations, as I wonder how much of an effect that already has.

I'm not sure how it would lead to a lower standard across the board either; the primary change would be that fully-private schools (which are a small minority right now) would open up to public, so I don't think it would have an immediate knock-on effect to the rest of the system.
It seems as if it would have a more long-term effect of accelerated reform of the existing system.

donaghs

KyussBishop wrote: »

Why would schools in better off areas be more successful though? Would that be down to fees or donations to those schools?
If so, that could be curtailed to an extent; it's part of the reason I'm curious what the current situation is for public/semi-private, regarding fees/donations, as I wonder how much of an effect that already has.

A variety of reasons, but mainly, down to the parents, and the role they play in their children's education. Speaking with people who are teachers, this always comes across. No matter how good a teacher is, if the parents have no interest in their children's education, the teacher can only get the basics across, and is sometimes just "babysitting" - and bad or disruptive pupils drag down standards for everyone else in class.

Parents need to take in interest in their childrens education in a number of ways. e.g. starting reading before schools. I've been in homes in lower income areas with children that had no books (plenty of TV and games consoles). Parents need to ensure that children do homework, and if they are lagging behind in learning or causing a disruption in class, they also need to intervene - and take guidance from the teacher. etc.

KyussBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

Public schools non-discriminatory in Ireland?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78451490&postcount=12

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78486455&postcount=10

Interesting, pretty surprising that such discrimination happens still that is definitely a necessary reform, as no school accepting public money should be allowed to discriminate like that.

bluewolf wrote: »

So headhunting should be abolished? Teachers aren't entitled as much as anyone else to take a higher paid job if they want? They should be forced into lower paid jobs in the public schools because he says so?

One of the comments on the article sums it up:


Forcing all the children into poorer education while people sit around waiting for the govt to cop on when they can't attract the best teachers? Drag everyone down to the worst level?
Appalling idea

Well part of the situation (as the article mentions) is that private schools can cream off the better teachers from the public system, which reduces the quality of teachers available to public education.

That also, to an extent, exacerbates any problems with quality of teaching in the public system, and provides greater opportunity to the wealthy (in private schools) vs the public.

I don't think this new system would need to necessitate equal pay for all teachers, I think there should be room for a meritocratic approach to wage setting; probably an interesting discussion in itself, on how such a system may work.


As for home-schooling and paid for tutors:
That's an interesting side-discussion, I'm not opposed to home-schooling or tutoring/grinds outside of the main educational system; I don't think the closing/assimilation of private schools necessitates getting rid of that.

Effectively, you could treat that as a completely different issue (intimately related to but) apart from the main topic; it would need to be shown that tutoring/grinds promote the same segregation issues that private schools do (and to the same extent).


"Forcing all the children into poorer education while people sit around waiting for the govt to cop on when they can't attract the best teachers? Drag everyone down to the worst level?"
This paints a pretty harsh picture of public education as 'the worst level', but private education is the minority in this country, so this is interesting as the sentiment implies the grand majority of the country is at a pretty poor level of education.

My view is that the removal of private education may spur increased reform of the public system (particularly because the wealthy with kids previously in private schools generally have better political connections), which would raise the standard for all.

KyussBishop

donaghs wrote: »

A variety of reasons, but mainly, down to the parents, and the role they play in their children's education. Speaking with people who are teachers, this always comes across. No matter how good a teacher is, if the parents have no interest in their children's education, the teacher can only get the basics across, and is sometimes just "babysitting" - and bad or disruptive pupils drag down standards for everyone else in class.

Parents need to take in interest in their childrens education in a number of ways. e.g. starting reading before schools. I've been in homes in lower income areas with children that had no books (plenty of TV and games consoles). Parents need to ensure that children do homework, and if they are lagging behind in learning or causing a disruption in class, they also need to intervene - and take guidance from the teacher. etc.

Okey, but isn't that going to be a problem no matter what educational system is in place?

It seems like that would not lead to a better quality of schooling in a particular area (and subsequent neglect of schools in other areas), just a better involvement of parents in education in one area.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well part of the situation (as the article mentions) is that private schools can cream off the better teachers from the public system, which reduces the quality of teachers available to public education.

Teachers don't have some sort of obligation to be working for the public.
Private sector could probably do many things better in some areas or hire more "cream of the crop" workers in general - does that mean all private competition should be killed off in those areas? So that we can continue feeding money to the public side to do things worse?

That also, to an extent, exacerbates any problems with quality of teaching in the public system, and provides greater opportunity to the wealthy (in private schools) vs the public.

If I work hard to earn money and want to use that for the benefit of my kids and their education, I don't see where the problem is

I don't think this new system would need to necessitate equal pay for all teachers, I think there should be room for a meritocratic approach to wage setting; probably an interesting discussion in itself, on how such a system may work.

Why don't do you that in the current public education sector then instead of killing off competition

As for home-schooling and paid for tutors:
That's an interesting side-discussion, I'm not opposed to home-schooling or tutoring/grinds outside of the main educational system; I don't think the closing/assimilation of private schools necessitates getting rid of that.

If you're complaining about the advantages of the wealthy in terms of education and saying that everyone should have the same education then it only follows that advantages of affording grinds and grindschools should be included in that

This paints a pretty harsh picture of public education as 'the worst level'

The complaint in the OP article was that private education was better .So yes, if public education is worse then you want to drag the students down to the worse level

My view is that the removal of private education may spur increased reform of the public system (particularly because the wealthy with kids previously in private schools generally have better political connections), which would raise the standard for all.

If your problem is political connections why don't you work on that instead of killing off competition and insisting kids get a worse education and crossing your fingers that maybe one day - well past the time they'll graduate - the govt with its monopoly on education might suddenly stop acting like it always does with a monopoly and improve standards?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I guess I'm just going off the article on that one

Among the methods he celebrated, it has "aggressively recruited, and generously remunerated, talented individuals from a range of backgrounds".

Maybe it's the only school doing that??

christmas2012

i think its a great idea there should be more integration

RubyRoss

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Overzealous social engineering? All social policies are a form of social engineering - the whole concept of eductation is an effort at social engineering as is the constitution.

The UK has a more pronounced class division so I think comparisons with Ireland are not entirely suitable. Of course, people have a right to send their children to private schools but in this country state schools are not black holes of learning (though the system of teaching and courses has problems).


There is a world of difference between the worst disadvantaged schools (which are not necessarily inner-city by the way as there are many rural schools in poverty) and the average state school. Most postgrads I know are from state schools - there's no obvious gap between bright state and private school students.

FreudianSlippers

KyussBishop wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

How can you force a private entity to close its business? If the answer is that they get some state support, then wouldn't some schools turn to a fee-paying only system and thus make themselves even more of an elitist institution?

The private schools would more be assimilated into the public system (like semi-private ones are), and would be subject to the same rules as semi-private schools.

I don't know if semi-private schools are free to reject students or require fees (and in general, I don't know what their extra liberties are in relation to public schools), so it may result in additional restrictions on semi-private schools as well, to enforce non-discrimination and possibly limit fees.

The fees thing is an interesting aspect of this: What is the current status of public/semi-private schools, when it comes to accepting/requiring fees?
The ideal would be no fees (thus equal opportunity for everyone in the area of the school), but I'm curious how the system currently is in that regard.

What I'm saying is what would stop me then from starting a truly private school with no state funding and charging €50,000/year. Surely some people would attend this school and it is then limited by what families can afford?

KyussBishop

If there would need to be constitutional changes to change this, that could be put up to a referendum; if any private schools accept subsidies from the state in any way, that should come with certain strings attached for sure, whether in the current system or proposed one (effectively, that would be semi-private).

The 'social engineering' criticism has come up again, but the description 'social engineering' applies to basically all laws, so that criticism is so broad as to be invalid really; needs to be more specific.

bluewolf wrote: »

Teachers don't have some sort of obligation to be working for the public.
Private sector could probably do many things better in some areas or hire more "cream of the crop" workers in general - does that mean all private competition should be killed off in those areas? So that we can continue feeding money to the public side to do things worse?

The implication here is that going all-private is better, but that inherently increases social segregation on a large scale, and (as discussed in the Political Theory forum) is a completely experimental idea for modern education.

So ruling that out, we have to work with the public/semi-private system we have now; fully private schools would disappear, but teachers could still choose what semi-private or public school they wanted to work for.

I'm not hard-set on how flexible semi-private schools should be in determining teacher wages, and if extra income from the local community (probably through donations) is acceptable; a lot of that is still undefined for me, I'm just toying with the idea.

bluewolf wrote: »

If I work hard to earn money and want to use that for the benefit of my kids and their education, I don't see where the problem is

That presupposes that all of the wealthy have worked hard for their riches, which is largely not true; most wealth is inherited.

bluewolf wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

I don't think this new system would need to necessitate equal pay for all teachers, I think there should be room for a meritocratic approach to wage setting; probably an interesting discussion in itself, on how such a system may work.

Why don't do you that in the current public education sector then instead of killing off competition

I think it would be a good idea for either system; the whole argument doesn't hinge on this though, because the wider argument is addressing many issues other than this.

bluewolf wrote: »

If you're complaining about the advantages of the wealthy in terms of education and saying that everyone should have the same education then it only follows that advantages of affording grinds and grindschools should be included in that

My views on aren't hard-set like that as that would be too absolute/polarized, it all depends upon how the system is implemented; individual grinds and out-of-hours supplementary learning don't seem like they would be incompatible with the system.

bluewolf wrote: »

If your problem is political connections why don't you work on that instead of killing off competition and insisting kids get a worse education and crossing your fingers that maybe one day - well past the time they'll graduate - the govt with its monopoly on education might suddenly stop acting like it always does with a monopoly and improve standards?

Is that deliberately ignoring my wider argument? It's clear that those with more wealth (and thus greater involvement in private school) have better political connections and political control, and if forced to use the public system, have a vested interest in improving it.

If the wealthy and political class can just bypass public education and send their kids to private schools, they would have much less of an interest in improving conditions.


As for higher teacher wages in private schools:
In Ireland, over €100 million is spent subsidizing teachers in private schools; the data linked giving evidence for lower payment in private schools, was from the US, not Ireland.

This doesn't specify whether or how much teachers get above and beyond that; it's quite hard to find any data on that, but this article provides a breakdown of overall wages for some schools. Would be handy to get a teacher count for any of those schools, to compare.

KyussBishop

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What I'm saying is what would stop me then from starting a truly private school with no state funding and charging €50,000/year. Surely some people would attend this school and it is then limited by what families can afford?

Well this depends upon what method the state would use to discourage or shut down private education.

I don't know the best method of approaching this, but one 'soft' approach could be putting as a precursor on teaching the leaving cert, that a school must turn semi-private.

That of course, opens up the question of what to do about other cirricula etc. and if private schools would still persist that way
I don't know if that kind of stuff would create problems in the transition, requiring a more 'hard' approach; it seems mostly a technicality of implementation though.

KyussBishop

(excuse the triple-post; trying to reduce my multiquoting )

RubyRoss wrote: »

The UK has a more pronounced class division so I think comparisons with Ireland are not entirely suitable. Of course, people have a right to send their children to private schools but in this country state schools are not black holes of learning (though the system of teaching and courses has problems).

Yea this is a good point; it's mainly a bigger problem in the UK, but the general arguments behind it I think still apply well in principle here as well, just to a lesser extent.

BOHtox

close private schools?

does anyone else think the total opposite?

I think we should only have private secondary and third level schools!

johnnyskeleton

You don't web need to speculate or hypothesise to k ow this wouldn't work. Does a non fee paying school in donnybrook have the same level of education as one in darndale?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KarmaBaby

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

How can you force a private entity to close its business?

Interesting that you refer to a school as a "business".

It's in the public's best interest to take control of any privately own institution/asset which is damaging to society whether it be due to inequality, economical or other reasons. Actually one could argue that the state has an obligation to do so.

The state should also simply take land from rich landowners to build public services. Remember Eamon Gilmore's wife landing half a million for a site to build a local school? Bloody ridiculous that. Just take it from her. Why should a small minority of elites be allowed to continue to hyper accumulate wealth to the detriment of public services?

KarmaBaby

BOHtox wrote: »

close private schools?

does anyone else think the total opposite?

I think we should only have private secondary and third level schools!

Bloody Genius that. Lets forget about education that's based on improving people's intelligence and understand of the world, and instead focus on "market-based" education to churn out more unthinking drones to keep the cogs of the capitalist machine turning.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If that is true, it appears to be in contradiction of this article, which states the funding private schools allocate for teachers in addition to state funding; it does not provide figures on salaries, which would be useful, but it does indicate that private schools contribute to teachers wages, and there's nothing to suggest these wages have a limit.

I may be wrong now, but there needs to be hard data (preferably in the form of wage figures) either way to determine this.

Permabear wrote: »

This also implies that the parents of a private-school child pay twice over for education — once in the form of the taxes they pay toward funding our €8.5 billion public education system, and again in the form of tuition fees so that their child can attend a private school.

They don't pay twice over if the teachers of the school are at least partially publicly funded, where is the logic in that?

An additional point, putting aside for a moment the shutting-down/assimilation of private schools, and taking things in the context of the current system:
Due to their partial public funding, these private schools should at least not be free to discriminate on the students they accept for enrollment, and the fact that they accept any public funding at all should give the state the right to exert greater control over them.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

With the majority of education spending going on salaries surely they see most of that back through the state subsidy?

The private school has their wage bill paid for them so tuition fees shouldn't include teachers salaries.

BOHtox

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Bloody Genius that. Lets forget about education that's based on improving people's intelligence and understand of the world, and instead focus on "market-based" education to churn out more unthinking drones to keep the cogs of the capitalist machine turning.

Not at all. Currently, what we're doing is by having a state curriculum, we limit the knowledge a child can learn. Most children are suited to a state curriculm. I wanted to do Economics, Business and Accounting in school. I couldn't due to number. A guy who did his leaving cert with me is in Rathmines college repeating. He has classes of 5 or 6 for some subjects. So in private education, I would have been able to have my choices and I'd be doing something I like instead of being forced to do Irish or another subject I didn't like.

We cannot tar all children with th eone brush. By having a state curriculum we limit what children learn and this is only suited to some students.

It's not just economic but it makes educational sense!

RubyRoss

BOHtox wrote: »

close private schools?

does anyone else think the total opposite?

I think we should only have private secondary and third level schools!

This post clarifies the upended terms of this ‘debate’: the OP introduced a discussion of a policy which aims to improve education standards across society but when some people think there should not be universals secondary education at all, the debate is pointless.

Frankly, I think your position is bonkers … maybe I’d know a more apt word if I went to private school…

BOHtox

RubyRoss wrote: »

This post clarifies the upended terms of this ‘debate’: the OP introduced a discussion of a policy which aims to improve education standards across society but when some people think there should not be universals secondary education at all, the debate is pointless.

Frankly, I think your position is bonkers … maybe I’d know a more apt word if I went to private school…

Read my post above yours. I explain my choice briefly

seamus

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't know the best method of approaching this, but one 'soft' approach could be putting as a precursor on teaching the leaving cert, that a school must turn semi-private.

But that's even practically unfeasible. The curriculum is a public matter. You cannot ban a private individual or a private school from following the curriculum. Sure, you could ban them from holding exams in their school, but they can just arrange for their students to go elsewhere to sit the exam.

In fact, this is what many grinds schools already do. You can't ban individual students from sitting an exam on the basis of what school they attended.

How do you prevent a private school from teaching a public curriculum?

KarmaBaby wrote: »

The state should also simply take land from rich landowners to build public services.

No, I don't think we'll be doing that.
You'd be happy so if the state could just take your home, bulldoze it for a new motorway and tell you to go fnck yourself when you ask for fair compensation?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

BOHtox wrote: »

Not at all. Currently, what we're doing is by having a state curriculum, we limit the knowledge a child can learn. Most children are suited to a state curriculm. I wanted to do Economics, Business and Accounting in school. I couldn't due to number. A guy who did his leaving cert with me is in Rathmines college repeating. He has classes of 5 or 6 for some subjects. So in private education, I would have been able to have my choices and I'd be doing something I like instead of being forced to do Irish or another subject I didn't like.

We cannot tar all children with th eone brush. By having a state curriculum we limit what children learn and this is only suited to some students.

It's not just economic but it makes educational sense!

There's no reason why people shouldn't be able to learn things outside of the curriculum, or given opportunities for particular subjects if their school does not have the numbers to do a class; the idea behind the OP isn't inflexible to the extent that it would get rid of all private education (not necessarily even supplementary private education like grinds), just that peoples main primary/secondary education would be through public or semi-private means.

KarmaBaby

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Lets forget about education that's based on improving people's intelligence and understand of the world

Going by the current Irish education system, one might suppose that we already have

RubyRoss

BOHtox wrote: »

Not at all. Currently, what we're doing is by having a state curriculum, we limit the knowledge a child can learn. Most children are suited to a state curriculm. I wanted to do Economics, Business and Accounting in school. I couldn't due to number. A guy who did his leaving cert with me is in Rathmines college repeating. He has classes of 5 or 6 for some subjects. So in private education, I would have been able to have my choices and I'd be doing something I like instead of being forced to do Irish or another subject I didn't like.

We cannot tar all children with th eone brush. By having a state curriculum we limit what children learn and this is only suited to some students.
It's not just economic but it makes educational sense!

Please, the state curriculum has nothing to do with the fact that your school could not provide your chosen subjects or that those attending private schools have smaller classes.

By the way in university you often do not get to do want you want either – modules are dependent on time-tables and numbers. And there are always wealthier people who have access to more resources/perks – that is life.

BOHtox

RubyRoss wrote: »

Please, the state curriculum has nothing to do with the fact that your school could not provide your chosen subjects or that those attending private schools have smaller classes.

By the way in university you often do not get to do want you want either – modules are dependent on time-tables and numbers. And there are always wealthier people who have access to more resources/perks – that is life.

I was making two separate points. One was about the inablility to host a subject I wanted to do. The second was the state curriculum can't provide for every student.

The second part is true but the unequal distribution of wealth is largely down to the state's, and states', fault

KyussBishop

seamus wrote: »

But that's even practically unfeasible. The curriculum is a public matter. You cannot ban a private individual or a private school from following the curriculum. Sure, you could ban them from holding exams in their school, but they can just arrange for their students to go elsewhere to sit the exam.

In fact, this is what many grinds schools already do. You can't ban individual students from sitting an exam on the basis of what school they attended.

How do you prevent a private school from teaching a public curriculum?

No, I don't think we'll be doing that.
You'd be happy so if the state could just take your home, bulldoze it for a new motorway and tell you to go fnck yourself when you ask for fair compensation?

That's a fair point that there may be practical issues; I think as part of taking the Leaving cert exam, you could stipulate that students must have had 'x' amount of days enrollment in semi-private/public schools, so the attendance requirement there would make anything other than supplementary private education difficult.

Again, I view this aspect of it as an (admittedly important) technicality, as there are multiple ways to implement it.

KarmaBaby

seamus wrote: »

You'd be happy so if the state could just take your home, bulldoze it for a new motorway and tell you to go fnck yourself when you ask for fair compensation?

Pure fantasy. You know full well I wasn't talking about someone's home.

Are you saying that private business should be allowed to accumulate wealth and assets to the detriment of society without state intervention?

KarmaBaby

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Pure fantasy. You know full well I wasn't talking about someone's home.

Are you saying that private business should be allowed to accumulate wealth and assets to the detriment of society without state intervention?

What exactly is "the detriment of society"? "They have it and I want some too"?

KarmaBaby

bluewolf wrote: »

Going by the current Irish education system, one might suppose that we already have

Yep, certainly going that way, but we're still far better educated that countries that rely heavily of private education.

KarmaBaby

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Yep, certainly going that way, but we're still far better educated that countries that rely heavily of private education.

Which ones and proof please?

KyussBishop

I don't think there are other countries relying heavily (interpreting that as a majority) on private education; the closest would be some developing countries like India.

The idea of an all-private education system is pretty much 100% experimental because it does not seem to have been tried in over a century or more (if even then).
There does not seem to be any solution to the segregation issues in such a system either; proponents usually do not see the segregation as an issue.

In short, it is not a practical alternative for current society; if it were to work even in theory (which is highly debatable, as the Libertarian discussions show), it would require pretty extensive societal change.

KarmaBaby

bluewolf wrote: »

What exactly is "the detriment of society"? "They have it and I want some too"?

According to the 2010 Meryl Lynch report 1% of the population own 34% of the wealth. Such a concentration of wealth among a minority of elites is clearly detrimental to society. It's a dictatorship of the ruling class no different from a monarchy.

As was intimated in the article in the OP, private education--which is only available to the rich--reinforces the class divide, ensures that that minority remains in power, and that the state is run in their own greedy interests. You only have to look at the boarding school past of the UK's Politicians to see that, and you only have to look back at the London riots to see what happens to society when there is a lack of educational and economic opportunity for poor young people.

That is "the detriment of society" and yes, people absolutely stand up and say "They have it and I want some too". Why the hell shouldn't they?

Chuck Stone

Got as far as about the 4th/5th mention of social engineering before I felt like punching the fucking screen.

Will the people who keep mentioning social engineering as if it were some grand conspiracy against the 'more resourceful' please explain to me how they have imagined that they exist outside a socially engineered system?

I'll save you the time. You don't.

KarmaBaby

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't think there are other countries relying heavily (interpreting that as a majority) on private education; the closest would be some developing countries like India.

The U.S. and Turkey are two good examples. the private sector has a monopoly of education in Turkey, particularly at third level. I know because I've studied in Ankara. You also couldn't really classify education in Australia and New Zealand as "public" because of their ridiculous loan system which put many people in 6 figure debts. The less the state funds educaiton via the exchequer the more schools and universities invariable end up behaving like private institutions with a profit motive. In that sense they are only publicly owned in name.

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

if it were to work even in theory (which is highly debatable, as the Libertarian discussions show)

How on earth does private education not 'work in theory'?

Extending your usual criticism, was the current system tested prior to its implementation? Did some institution 'empirically' test an entire system of part public part private education and then carefully measure the results before moving things along? What journal was the study published in?

In fact, what is the evidence in favour of the state providing education in the first place? Why shouldn't they make shoes or bread? Or the statePhone 4S?

KarmaBaby

BOHtox wrote: »

Not at all. Currently, what we're doing is by having a state curriculum, we limit the knowledge a child can learn. Most children are suited to a state curriculm. I wanted to do Economics, Business and Accounting in school. I couldn't due to number. A guy who did his leaving cert with me is in Rathmines college repeating. He has classes of 5 or 6 for some subjects. So in private education, I would have been able to have my choices and I'd be doing something I like instead of being forced to do Irish or another subject I didn't like.

We cannot tar all children with th eone brush. By having a state curriculum we limit what children learn and this is only suited to some students.

It's not just economic but it makes educational sense!

This is an amazing contradiction in your post.

You wanted to study primarily Finance/Business related subjects, but the state curriculum meant you got a more diverse and balanced educaiton.

Your choices would have limited your own knowledge to one area from a young age.

It is important for every child to have a balance that includes arts, science, languages, history, geography and so on. and it is also important in the make up of society that people are well educated in all areas.

There is a time and place to specialise in order to choose your future career. It's called college.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think the figures quoted are about 80% of the education budget goes on pay so a taxpayer sending a child to a private school is getting 80% of their tax contribution back through the state subsidy.

From your previous post:

This also implies that the parents of a private-school child pay twice over for education — once in the form of the taxes they pay toward funding our €8.5 billion public education system, and again in the form of tuition fees so that their child can attend a private school.

They aren't paying twice over as the state pays a subsidy back to the private school to pay salaries.

Private schools have most of their wage bill paid by the state. They can, at their discretion, hire additional teachers who are paid from tuition revenue.

Tuition fees don't include teachers' salaries. As a result, Irish private tuition is modest by international standards. The Irish Times article linked above states that the average private tuition in Cork is €3,350.

Exactly. The parent isn't paying for education twice over as you seem to think though. They are getting the majority of their tax contribution back.

dsmythy

Why does equality always involve dragging people down rather than pulling them up? Would shutting down private schools improve public ones?