Should Education be privatised?

Well now, aren't there a few single and low double digit accounts here

I never suggested schools should be privatised. I asked a question without giving my own opinion.

You did, in your opening post, and you gave your own opinion as to why they should be privatised, which amounted to “housing is privatised so schools should be privatised too” -

So why not privatise schools?

By this I mean the state should stop funding them entirely and leave foreign vulture funds to come in and fund/charge for them instead? If this sounds familiar then it should as it is exactly what is/has been occurring regarding the provision of housing in Ireland for some time now.

The vast majority of schools in Ireland are already privatised to the extent that they are owned, operated, managed and maintained by Patron bodies which receive public funding for the provision of their services to the public. I can’t think of any single benefit whatsoever to the public that would come about as a result of education no longer being provided for from public funds.

An economic hurdle.

Demoralisation to allow deconstruction in the pursuit of infinite economy.

A mere glance at the deconstruction of the idea of affordable housing over the last number of decades to the point where the word crisis is normalised, the deconstruction of nationhood and all its components and expectations have been severely eroded, social expectations such as family formation and proficient healthcare and childcare and education are subverted, and so on.

The simple fact of the matter is that with infinite amounts of people ready to enter a country, there is no need to have a self-sustaining society anymore.

What we are witnessing in real time is the transitional phase of historical society to pure economic unit.

Evidently, evidently, it is what it is.

There is little need for education beyond the basics going forward as it can be bought far cheaper from elsewhere.

The privatisation of education wholesale is simply a next logical step in deconstructing it for profit and eventual abandonment.

I do wonder where people get such ridiculous ideas, too much American politics perhaps?

Taking away free education would literally inhibit so many in society. To even suggest such a thing just shows a complete lack of knowledge of the ramifications it would have.

The privatise everything crowd don't give a damn about anyone else. They'll happily see others put in a state of extreme disadvantage and not bat an eyelid, whether that's in housing, health or education. They couldn't care less if others are priced out of an essentiality, so long as they themselves can afford it. Problems only occur when they find that their privatise everything approach eventually prices them out as well.

And then they start singing a different tune.

Indeed, a detestable idea often put forth by detestable people.

I'm well aware what FG wanted to do with water in this country. Thankfully people banded together and told them to fuck off.

So they work 9.00-2.30 according to you, with 30+15 break. 5.30hrs - 0.45hrs = 4.45hrs , 4.45hrsx5=23.45hrs a week. Or they, according to you, might work in extra 30 minutes to 3pm, or and early career might put in a WHOPPING 2 hrs overtime a day which still doesn't bloody bring us to 5pm or add up to 35hrs a week.

Then you're off half days, off for summer, off for midterms, off every Christmas every Easter break, off for every holiday in the book and off every time there is bad weather. Off for nearly half of the year actually, at 195 working days MAX out of the total 365. Anyone else in the economy is asked to work 60 extra days a year, at least, that's a total of 3 months extra work in a year.

Do you have any idea how entitled teachers look to an average wage slave? it's absurd. That 9-5 you described as some sort of hellish worst scenario, that's the DREAM out in the real world.

The likes of Serco and Capita would be reason enough to know that private companies should not be let near education.

Name some

Do tell how them lads earn less. You might have a bit of a teacher take on it, get in sit on your ass for 40 years. That's not how the real world works. Ambitious lads work up the ranks.

But then, I respect our defence forces.

A new private earns €662.08 per week (I assume it's per week, that's what their pay scale shows), which is just shy of €35k per annum.

A new secondary teacher earns €44,329 per annum.

The top non-com rate looks to be €1,312.94 (again, assuming this is per week), which is just over €68k per annum.

Top point of secondary teacher scale is just shy of €81k per annum.

Which is to say, both our teachers and military personnel are woefully underpaid, but to think that people will take a job in the defence forces to make more money than being a teacher is just laughable.

Schools are free and public because that best serves the economic interests of the country. We need a well educated population to maintain high employment rates.

Where schools are private they are able to shape their curriculum to whatever suits their agenda. Hence in the UK and America we have religiously extreme schools teaching both Islamic and fundamentalist Christianity, all on the governments ticket through voucher schemes. Both countries are suffering drops in educational achievement as a consequence.

Private schools are socially corrosive, and so a terrible idea. There are also a whole raft of knock on problems caused by poorly educated people (who can't afford the good private schools) who are functionally useless to employers.

How the billionaire class shapes the future.

By this I mean the state should stop funding them entirely and leave foreign vulture funds to come in and fund/charge for them instead?

This is exactly why it's a terrrible idea: you want foreign vested interests controlling what goes into children's heads.

People like Twitter/X maybe? The Heritage Foundation? Promoting more Derek Blighes and Philip Dwyers?

The RCC? Back to catechism teaching and hands-above-the-covers sleeping?

Disney? Coca-Cola/Pepsi?

No, I don't think it was curt to suggest if they think it's so great why not do it....that's inviting them in not dismissing them..…come have a go, see if you still have the same opinion afterwards...you'll notice I'm not critiquing other roles from a position of what seems like ignorance...merely saying maybe, just maybe they should try it for a sustained periods...if they think it's so great....it doesn't appear logical to give out about how great something is and not try get it yourself if you think it's so wonderful.....just as its not logical if the reverse is true to remain at something.....in both cases it should be obvious a bit of planning, time thought and effort would have to go into either entering the role or having a managed withdrawal.....

To me that seems entirely consistent and logical ...I'm not sure what your point is at all the more I think about it.

And to address your second point .…In my case I really do know what the advantages and disadvantages of some other jobs are.....having done a couple of them over the years...public and private sector, business etc so I feel I do have some insight....although obviously subjective....but that's as good as a lot of the commentary I see on the other side of things tbh

Certainly a lot less bitter/resentful/almost agressive than some of stuff I've read from the posters who particularly like to characterise with choice words like moan and whinge etc....

Now if one wanted an example of curtness or dismissiveness...charaterising what people write in a debate as moaning or whinging.......that's pretty belittling...are you sure you shouldn't be to use that awful phrase "called out"?