Access to Education

An Coilean

There has been much talk lately on Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn's plans to make school enrolement fairer.

Proposals in relation to this include the outlawing of the practice of giving priority to the children of past pupils or staff. Also proposed is that parents would no longer have to pay simply to apply for a school place and schools interviewing parents and children prior to acceptance would also be scrapped.

It has been suggested that these practices allow schools to select prefered students and exclude 'undesirables' such as children from a poor background and travers.

It is hoped that the new legislation will make access to education fairer for thjese groups. However the introduction of these rules could also have a negative impact on another group, parents who are raising their children through Irish.
Many Gaelscoils have a policy of giving preference to children from homes where Irish is spoken both to support those families who are raising their children through Irish and because having children who are already fluent in Irish in the classroom can aid the development of language skills in the rest of the class.
The new legislation however could mean that Gaelscoils will be prevented from giving preference to children from Irish speaking backgrounds.
So should families raising their children through Irish be supported by the state and allowed preference in getting placements in Irish medium schools or should that practice be outlawed?

Personally while I support the aim of the proposed legislation in general, I think there is an obligation on the state to support families that are raising their children through or with Irish and Gaelscoils should be allowed to continue giving preference to children from Irish speaking backgrounds.

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

There has been much talk lately on Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn's plans to make school enrolement fairer.

Proposals in relation to this include the outlawing of the practice of giving priority to the children of past pupils or staff. Also proposed is that parents would no longer have to pay simply to apply for a school place and schools interviewing parents and children prior to acceptance would also be scrapped.

It has been suggested that these practices allow schools to select prefered students and exclude 'undesirables' such as children from a poor background and travers.

It is hoped that the new legislation will make access to education fairer for thjese groups. However the introduction of these rules could also have a negative impact on another group, parents who are raising their children through Irish.
Many Gaelscoils have a policy of giving preference to children from homes where Irish is spoken both to support those families who are raising their children through Irish and because having children who are already fluent in Irish in the classroom can aid the development of language skills in the rest of the class.
The new legislation however could mean that Gaelscoils will be prevented from giving preference to children from Irish speaking backgrounds.
So should families raising their children through Irish be supported by the state and allowed preference in getting placements in Irish medium schools or should that practice be outlawed?

Personally while I support the aim of the proposed legislation in general, I think there is an obligation on the state to support families that are raising their children through or with Irish and Gaelscoils should be allowed to continue giving preference to children from Irish speaking backgrounds.

I suppose some sort of exception could be written in to the law for gaelscoils but then what stops parents who don't want their children mixing with "undesirables" flocking to the gaelscoils.

riffmongous

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I suppose some sort of exception could be written in to the law for gaelscoils but then what stops parents who don't want their children mixing with "undesirables" flocking to the gaelscoils.

Well they would have to start speaking Irish at home right? Could be a good idea maybe

Cody Pomeray

An Coilean wrote: »

Proposals in relation to this include the outlawing of the practice of giving priority to the children of past pupils or staff.

I presume that can only apply to schools which are in the free fees scheme, and not those schools who have not signed up.

If a school is effectively a group of parents coming together to educate their children as a closed community of scholars, it's hard to see how the Government can legislate for who they admit or do not admit, or what criteria these parents employ to reach such a decision.

Iwasfrozen

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I presume that can only apply to schools which are in the free fees scheme, and not those schools who have not signed up.

If a school is effectively a group of parents coming together to educate their children as a closed community of scholars, it's hard to see how the Government can legislate for who they admit or do not admit, or what criteria these parents employ to reach such a decision.

Don't private schools receive government subsidy? That should be stopped if parents want to send their kids to a private school they should pay the full price themselves.

Zubeneschamali

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't private schools receive government subsidy?

Subsidy is an understatement. The Department pays all teachers wages.

Iwasfrozen

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Subsidy is an understatement. The Department pays all teachers wages.

Christ,

VinLieger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Subsidy is an understatement. The Department pays all teachers wages.

God what a completely uninformed sweeping statement, are we back to this chip on shoulder argument?

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

God what a completely uninformed sweeping statement, are we back to this chip on shoulder argument?

To be clear, you know of a private school where the Department does not pay the teachers wages?

VinLieger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To be clear, you know of a private school where the Department does not pay the teachers wages?

I dont know of any school where they dont pay SOME of the teachers wages but as far as i know in no private school do they pay for ALL of them

Iwasfrozen

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont know of any school where they dont pay SOME of the teachers wages but as far as i know in no private school do they pay for ALL of them

Some is too much, they're either private or they're not.

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I suppose some sort of exception could be written in to the law for gaelscoils but then what stops parents who don't want their children mixing with "undesirables" flocking to the gaelscoils.

That they would have to raise their kids through Irish to avail of preference for places in a Gaelscoil.

VinLieger

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Some is too much, they're either private or they're not.

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

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

This is the way our education system has worked for decades and completely scrapping the subsidy tomorrow would in no way help our economy or education system. Yes there may be the the possibility of phasing it out gently over several years but its not something that can easily be gotten rid of over night like some people would like to believe.

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

as far as i know in no private school do they pay for ALL of them

The Department pays for the same number of teachers in a private school as in a school with no fees with the same number of pupils.

I see your point, that private schools hire extra teachers with their fee money, so the Dept. does not pay for all of their teachers. I was wrong there.

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

That they would have to raise their kids through Irish to avail of preference for places in a Gaelscoil.

Anyone can promise to do that. It's not like the child can be expelled if the parents don't stick to their word.

Iwasfrozen

VinLieger wrote: »

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

Every child is entitled to education but not private education. If parents want to educate their children in private schools with better facilities that's within their rights but the government should not help them.

VinLieger wrote: »

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

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

VinLieger wrote: »

This is the way our education system has worked for decades and completely scrapping the subsidy tomorrow would in no way help our economy or education system. Yes there may be the the possibility of phasing it out gently over several years but its not something that can easily be gotten rid of over night like some people would like to believe.

And it was done wrong for decades. The child of a drug addict in a council estate is entitled to the same education as a banker's son.

VinLieger

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Every child is entitled to education but not private education. If parents want to educate their children in private schools with better facilities that's within their rights but the government should not help them.


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


And it was done wrong for decades. The child of a drug addict in a council estate is entitled to the same education as a banker's son.

Fair enough, i actually remember having the same argument with you when this was a thread in after hours. Were not gonna agree.

Just one question though, the 2 pieces of your post ive bolded do contradict each other and im curious about which you would you prefer?
Preferential education but ONLY if the parents pay for all? or no preferential education irregardless of parental wealth so in essence only allow state run education?

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Anyone can promise to do that. It's not like the child can be expelled if the parents don't stick to their word.

Of course anyone can promise to do something, but who said anything about giving preference of places to families that promise to raise their kids through Irish? There are families that raise their kids through Irish before school going age and it is to them that I am reffering. Of course you could get into the whole thing of how long before applying for a place in the school would the family have to be using Irish and it can be dificult for schools to make that call though in general the criteria are that at least one parent be able to speak Irish and the child show an ability to understand spoken Irish.

The situation is that for a given Gaelscoil, there might be two or three families in the area that are raising their children through Irish who are ready to start school in September, many Gaelscoils have a policy whereby places would be given to those children first. The proposed legislation would prevent that from happening.
I am not suggesting that Gaelscoils be given a total free pass on the legislation, but that an exception be made in the legislation in the sepcific case of children raised through Irish being given preference for places in an Irish Medium School.

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

Preferential education but ONLY if the parents pay for all? or no preferential education irregardless of parental wealth so in essence only allow state run education?

I'm fine with privately-funded schools. I don't and wouldn't send my kids to one. I don't think the taxpayer should give them €90m a year.

I also don't think we should have tax-funded schools segregated by religious ethos, or discrimination against teachers of the wrong religion or none in the tax-funded system.

Iwasfrozen

VinLieger wrote: »

Fair enough, i actually remember having the same argument with you when this was a thread in after hours. Were not gonna agree.

Just one question though, the 2 pieces of your post ive bolded do contradict each other and im curious about which you would you prefer?
Preferential education but ONLY if the parents pay for all? or no preferential education irregardless of parental wealth so in essence only allow state run education?

That's a tough question. I'd prefer the latter but I recognise this would infringe on the parents rights. So the former. On the basis that there will be very few areas with a high enough percentage of people who can afford it.

Zubeneschamali

An Coilean wrote: »

an exception be made in the legislation in the sepcific case of children raised through Irish being given preference for places in an Irish Medium School.

How would you establish for legal purposes that a particular child is being raised through Irish?

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

Of course anyone can promise to do something, but who said anything about giving preference of places to families that promise to raise their kids through Irish? It is specifically for families that already are raising their kids through Irish.

The situation is that for a given Gaelscoil, there might be two or three families in the area that are raising their children through Irish who are ready to start school in September, many Gaelscoils have a policy whereby places would be given to those children first. The proposed legislation would prevent that from happening.
I am not suggesting that Gaelscoils be given a total free pass on the legislation, but that an exception be made in the legislation in the sepcific case of children raised through Irish being given preference for places in an Irish Medium School.

I don't know, it just seems so open to abuse. I can see the point you're making though. Have you tried bringing up the issue with your TD?

An Coilean

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How would you establish for legal purposes that a particular child is being raised through Irish?

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

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

VinLieger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm fine with privately-funded schools. I don't and wouldn't send my kids to one. I don't think the taxpayer should give them €90m a year.

I also don't think we should have tax-funded schools segregated by religious ethos, or discrimination against teachers of the wrong religion or none in the tax-funded system.

I completely agree that a religious ethos is wrong in private or public schools that receive public money and that whole teachers have to be certain religion thing is a disgrace.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's a tough question. I'd prefer the latter but I recognise this would infringe on the parents rights. So the former. On the basis that there will be very few areas with a high enough percentage of people who can afford it.

But that would create an even more polarised education system than we have now. Yes the elite would be a tiny minority but it would create an even larger sense of elitism in them which from what youve said is one of your major issues.

Iwasfrozen

VinLieger wrote: »

But that would create an even more polarised education system than we have now. Yes the elite would be a tiny minority but it would create an even larger feeling of elitism in them which from what youve said is one of your major issues.

It's not so much social inequality I have a problem with. I want to promote social mobility. Give equal opportunities. And if only 0.5% of schools are in areas with enough wealthy parents to afford non subsidised private schools then 99.5% of kids are still starting out on an even footing. A marked improvement.

Fratton Fred

Private schools are a fact of life. The current subsidies mean that people who could otherwise not afford them can. So you could argue it is increasing their availability.

Cody Pomeray

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Subsidy is an understatement. The Department pays all teachers wages.

No it does not.

The reason why fee paying schools have lower pupil:teacher ratios is usually because the schools take on extra teachers themselves above and beyond those teachers which the Department of Education pays for.

It is wrong to say that the Department pays for all teachers in fee paying schools.

I'm not defending the level of funding extended to fee paying schools by the way- just stating that simple fact.

Iwasfrozen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Private schools are a fact of life. The current subsidies mean that people who could otherwise not afford them can. So you could argue it is increasing their availability.

It's obviously not an unalterable fact of life if it can be altered.

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you could argue it is increasing their availability.

Yes, sending more well-off kids to elite establishments, further ghetto-izing the schools less well-off kids can attend.

This is a bad thing.

Fratton Fred

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's obviously not an unalterable fact of life if it can be altered.

So you would abolish private schools?

Fratton Fred

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, sending more well-off kids to elite establishments, further ghetto-izing the schools less well-off kids can attend.

This is a bad thing.

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

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

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

Iwasfrozen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you would abolish private schools?

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

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you would abolish private schools?

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

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

Fratton Fred

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

Making them even more elitist.

An Coilean

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Making them even more elitist.

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

Fratton Fred

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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

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

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

hfallada

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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

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

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

RandomName2

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

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

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

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

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

Iwasfrozen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Making them even more elitist.

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

K-9

VinLieger wrote: »

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

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

Zubeneschamali

hfallada wrote: »

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

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

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

p1akuw47h5r3it

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

.

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

p1akuw47h5r3it

An Coilean wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

K-9

DanDan6592 wrote: »

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

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

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

p1akuw47h5r3it

K-9 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

PRAF

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

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

Iwasfrozen

DanDan6592 wrote: »

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

why would everyone be worse off?

p1akuw47h5r3it

PRAF wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

p1akuw47h5r3it

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

why would everyone be worse off?

I outlined some reasons in post No. 46.

Iwasfrozen

DanDan6592 wrote: »

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

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

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

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