We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
NEW RESEARCH PUBLISHED by the Department of Education shows that students from fee-charging secondary schools are more likely to go directly to higher education.
The research shows that 66 per cent of students who attended fee-charging schools progressed directly to higher education compared to 47 per cent from the non-fee charging secondary sector.
It also shows that 42 per cent of students from comprehensive schools, 38 per cent from community schools and 34 per from the vocational sector went directly to higher education.
Research
Overall, the study found that over half of students who were enrolled in the final year of senior cycle in a Department of Education & Skills-supported post-primary school in 2010 went directly to higher education.
A further 28 per cent progressed to further education, training or continued second-level education and 10 per cent took up employment, while 7 per cent had Social Welfare claims.
For students attending DEIS schools, 24 per cent went onto higher education compared to 49 per cent overall from non-DEIS status schools. Over 57 per cent of pupils attending all-Irish schools also enrolled in higher education courses.
Early leavers
The Department also tracked early leavers who left department-supported post-primary schools between the 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 academic years.
The Early Leavers – What Next? report shows that 57 per cent of the 7,713 early school leavers left after the Junior Certificate cycle or enrolment in Transition Year.
Minister for Education and Skills, Ruairí Quinn TD, said that the research will enhance the information used by the Department to plan for the future education needs of school leavers.
It found that 55 per cent of these early leavers went on to further education or training or continued in second-level education in Ireland.
Female early school leavers left at an earlier stage than their male classmates – over 20 per cent left after the first or second year of the Junior Certificate or JCSP cycle, compared to less than 20 per cent of males. Another 25 per cent of females left after year three of Junior Certificate/JCSP, compared to 21 per cent of males.
A further 14 per cent of the early leavers were enrolled in education or training outside of the State and amongst the early leavers, 6.6 per cent had Social Welfare claims. Another 6 per cent had joined the workforce during 2010.
School Completers – What’s Next? found that of the 54,824 school leavers that year, 44 per cent went on to study for a Higher Education course in a HEA funded Institution.
Another 20 per cent enrolled in PLC courses and 5 per cent repeated the Leaving Certificate. An estimated 4 per cent enrolled in colleges abroad, predominantly in the UK, including Northern Ireland.
Some 55 per cent of early leavers went on to further education or training or continued second-level education in Ireland, while a further 13.9 per cent were enrolled in education or training outside of the State.
Of those early leavers who did not continue in the education sector, 6.6 per cent had social welfare activity at the end of December 2010. Meanwhile, of the remainder, 6.1 per cent found employment during 2010.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
There’s a shock
The obvious conclusion is we need more fee paying schools.
This is hardly surprising news now is it? It’s simple: parents who are willing to pay for their child’s education are more likely to encourage them to further their education too. Quite often those parents went on to third level themselves and would value their education and want the same for their child.
That was my first thought too **SHOCKER** people who emphasise the importance of education over drinking cans 9 – 5 and smoking 40 benson a day most likely to achieve further education
Of Course in the boom years, when i went to school (non fee paying) we were being taught to smoke cigars with our 2 glasses of prosecco. Its sad the way things have changed so much in such a short time.
Fool! Cigars don’t go with prosecco, they go with scotch or port. What did you even study in your social studies class?
Why are you conflating parents who value education and parents who are ‘willing’ to pay for it? Plenty of parents encourage their kids to go to college, yet can’t afford to pay for private education, or opt not to pay for schooling if there’s a good public school nearby.
Seriously, what’s with the classism?
I think that you might be twisting my words Aoife. I never said that ONLY parents who pay for their child’s education value it, just that they are more likely to.
Sure my parents always taught us to value our education and only one of us went to a private school (and not me). All three of us appreciate our education though.
My comment was only responding to the topic of the article. I said nothing against public schools.
You brought in classism. I did not.
Where’s the classism in stating the obvious with that comment? I suppose she’s a racist because her post didn’t mention children from minority backgrounds specifically too?
I was partly aiming that comment at Snooch too, Síomha, and to be fair s/he made a more explicitly classist comment than you did.
Still, you claimed that “parents who are willing to pay for their child’s education are more likely to encourage them to further their education too”. Seriously? You seem to have entirely ignored that fact that for most parents it’s not a question of whether they’re ‘willing’ to pay for private education – it’s that they can’t afford to. That does not mean that they don’t value their children’s education. And, yes, I think that’s quite a classist assumption, even if it’s not on the level of what Snooch said.
You seem to have ignored the fact that she stated that people who encourage education
end up with children who make it to third level, regardless of class or financial situation to pursue some PC agenda akin to ‘oh wont someone think of the poor working class’. Who, in my opinion, have nobody to blame in a society where education is largely free and children (in the vast majority of cases) are given equal opportunities to finish school and make it to third level education, don’t, and end up repeating this cycle with kids of their own.
No, actually, Síomha didn’t state that ‘people who encourage education end up with children who make it to third level’. (Given her second comment I doubt she’d disagree with it, but she didn’t say it.) The only thing she said that was even close was that parents who went to third level themselves were more likely to want a good education for their children and therefore more likely to send them to private school. I don’t agree that a good education necessarily has to be private – I went to an excellent public school – but it’s true that parents who are educated themselves tend to value education.
(Incidentally, why have you decided to be Síomha’s spokesman? Presumable she can speak for herself.)
The people who don’t go to private school encompass far more than just the ‘poor working class’, by the way. Not that I’d expect that distinction to be understood by someone who suggests that public schools are filled with people “drinking cans 9 – 5 and smoking 40 benson a day”.
Síomha’s spokesperson? you said yourself the comment was directed towards me!
I wouldn’t expect you to grasp the point that I was making is that I wouldn’t expect colleges to be full of children who’s parents emphasise ‘drinking cans 9 – 5 and smoking 40 benson a day’ when you must address the great social injustice of somebody not commenting about pandering to the needs of the downtrodden masses who CHOOSE not to encourage their children not to concentrate on education.
Read back over your last comment there, it seems to be lacking a point to be honest. Picking apart my comment while regurgitating the same points I made in mine but as if from your perspective!
Aoife, I’d rather that you didn’t make assumptions on my behalf. I never spoke a work against non-fee-paying parents. Why would I when my own parents are those and I went to public school with the children of others?
I ignored no such fact and I am fully aware of the fact that not all parents can afford fees – again my own parents being an example. I never said that non-fee-paying parents don’t care. Nothing even like that.
MORE LIKELY does not mean ONLY. Please don’t try to put words in my mouth.
I also never said that only private schools could provide a good education.
You seem to have taken and agreed with my original point and then decided to twist it.
My point was fairly straightforward. Children of parents who encourage education are more likely to go on to third level and higher. One (of many) ways that this encouragement could be made is by a parent sending their child to a good school and paying fees in necessary.
I have taught in public and private schools & this is nothing new. Kids in fee paying school are from middle class backgrounds where there is a strong pressure from family that you continue your education. This is backed up by peer pressure that you will go to the same college as at least some of your friends. Very different to non-fee paying schools where it is often only the “smart kids” who are seen as being the ones to continue their education.
Depends on the kid in the end. Private education can be a waste of time and money on some kids.
Well if you pay for something, your more likely to value it and get the most out of it. This simply confirms this.
The students don’t pay for it though, their parents do. Parental pressure might be part of it, but disproportionate levels of staff and facilities compared to has to be considered. Also, there doesn’t seem to be a distinction here between long term pupils, and pupils going into private schools to repeat the leaving cert.
At the school I went to, their were guys who’s parents were teachers and taxi men, who struggled to pay the fees, but did so to provide their kids with the best education possible.
Obviously not everyone can afford a privately funded education, but it is within the grasp of those who would naturally take an interest int their childrens education.
Yes, parents who send their children to private schools do so purely out of concern for the quality of their education, and for no other reason
you’re *
there*
Here Here!
I don’t mind fee paying schools but I do have a problem paying for the teachers.
Parents that work hard and want the best for their kids…Oh no, shock horror! Let’s take it away from them and divide it equally amongst everyone. GIVE IT A REST. I would send my kids to private school in a heartbeat (if i had kids). Nothing wrong with wanting your children to have the best start in life possible.
I think the real problem though is that certain kids can’t get the best start in life because of their parent’s financial situation. Of course there is nothing wrong with parents wanting the best for their children, but smart kids in non-fee paying schools simply don’t have the same opportunities as their peers in private schools.
So David because some people can’t avail of a private education, no one should?
Not really a surprise is it? It’s the least you’d expect after forking out for your education.
I went to private school and now i am studying law in dublin city university. So chances are i am going to get nailed to a cross for having an opinion on this one.
From my experiences many parents choose private school based on the assumption that their child will be around a different “class” of people. Its not a representation of being better than others but i will send my kids to private education without a moment of hesitation.
To be honest who wouldnt want their child in a school with good teachers sml classes and high rates of pupils heading on to third level.
So rich kids are more likely to go to college, what a revelation!
I’m always surprised how this becomes a news story at all. “Something you pay for is better than something for free”
There’s a whole load of effects that go into this – yes the fee paying schools have their own effect but there’s more to it.
It’s similar to when parents jump through hoops to get their kid into a religious school (which happens a lot in the UK).
It’s not so much that the school is so good but the fact that parents who are willing to “go the distance” whether that be paying fees or somehow becoming involved with the school are the type of parents who are engaged in their kid’s education.
Because the parents are engaged, they end up going for the school perceived as good, which of course just magnifies the effect – and unfortunately, it works the other way too.
There’s also the uncomfortable suggestion in this headline that third level is the only route to fulfilling what people want from education and life. Vocational schools, by their nature and history, have a lot of pupils interested in trades and so the leaving certificate is seen as far less relevant to those pupils.
Aristocracy versus Meritocracy.Aristocracy wins! Quelle Suprise! Money Talks.Always has always will.Vive La Revolution!
Education for the favoured few heh.
Stephen, just take 2 minutes to think and you might see that there is a difference between favoured and lucky.
Fee payers aren’t being favoured at all.
I don’t see why the taxpayer should have to subsidise private schools at a time when there are cuts in the public education sectore. On a basic equality level, it’s not fair as you’re helping people who are in general more well off than those who send their children to the public sector.
People paying fees medical or school as well as taxes are being exploited not the other way around
How are they being exploited when they’re choosing to send their children to better private institutions rather than having them educated in FREE public schools? Your argument makes no sense.
If you take away the the paying by the state of public servant teachers, who are employed by the state, then the cost of fee paying schools will sky rocket, as they will have to hire private teachers. As such attendance to some of the best schools in the country will be out of the reach of many more people then it is today, thus creating an even more concentrated privileged class. Many of the schools would not be able to run in this way as they will loose too many pupils and so the influx of pupils into the public school system with actually cost the tax payer more because a pupil in a private school costs the tax payer a lot less than a pupil in a public school. You will also further erode one of the most important principles that a society should aspire to have and that is free education for all, irrespective of background, race or creed.
I think you’ll find that in private schools teachers’ salaries are still paid for by the State. The big difference is that they use their private funds to employ more teachers so that class sizes are smaller in comparison to the public system.
Outliers need to be removed from the study – kids with serious issues at home/ feckless parents are less likely to go to further ed, so are traveller children, both are small features in the public system only. So wouldn’t a more scientific way be to see out of a 1000 kids from each system how many move on up the chain?
Its not that private schools are necessarily the best. Parents fork out huge amounts of money on expensive grinds to help their children get the best results. Nothing new in this report. As per usual the department of education is 3 years behind the rest of us. You can go to school days.ie and get more up to date information than this report.
That’s not really true. :/ I did the same exam’s as everyone else at the leaving cert and i performed well because i studied. I received grinds for free off a friend’s father and that got me through Maths. Other than that i put my head down for a 2 years and i studied and studied and that’s where i got my results.
I get people complaining about Private Schools, but Private schools, Private hospitals and pretty much a private anything will always exist within a modern capitalist system. Its just the way things are. I agree with Conor if you want to invest your hard earned money into your child’s education then its your right to. There is a notable difference from my class which say 98% college attendance and other schools that are much much smaller numbers.
@ Nathan Wheeler
Most of the students I encountered at university who were privately educated weren’t actually suited to third level education and weren’t particularly smart for the most part.They just happened to have teachers at second level who “trained” them to get good points in the Leaving Cert.
Why is this any surprise? The demand for places in most fee paying schools is greater than the supply so the schools can decide which students they’ll take on. Naturally these students are more likely to be more gifted than the average student in particular fields, most obviously in the field of academics. Therefore the average results, coupled with better teaching due to more funds available, arealways going to be higher and college enrty rates are going to be higher. Also should parents who are willing to sacrifice such large amounts of money not be entitled to better teaching?
Valid points all. Private schools get the best teachers because they pay the best salaries and have the best students and facilities. It’s not rocket science.
Also, half the day isn’t wasted breaking up fights and checking the students for drugs or weapons.
Teachers are the same irrespective of the school. They are not always paid more. Frequently teachers in private schools are paid less and avoid some small elements of the Department of Education vetting. Great teachers are everywhere. Some do a wonderful job encouraging kids to go to school while others come up against pushy parents. Our teachers are the greatest equalizing factor in the education system.
Stephen – half the day on drugs, weapons and fights? Have you been watching the wire again?
Your attitude towards public schools is elitist as hell. Drugs and weapons?
Also, you’re ignoring that teachers are paid by the state (in both public and private schools) so they don’t earn more in the private sector.
As a factual remark, violence, drug use and such are hire in public schools than in Private schools its a simple statistic.
How prevalent is it? If it’s a simple statistic, I’m sure you can source it.
Care to back that up with evidence? Drugs were all over the private schools in my day – the ‘celtic tiger’, teenagers and too much of daddy’s expendible income made for a heady brew of idiocy with many. Wealth doesn’t automatically correlate with intelligent decisions or responsibility, as everyone in this country should know all too well!
No huge problem with private schools existing if there is sufficient demand. I do on the other hand have a problem with state money being pumped into them while we struggle to fund the public system adaquetly. There is no reason Blackrock College should be getting large State investments while public schools have to hold fundraisers to keep the lights on – that’s a perverse situation.
Do you honestly believe that there is the same amount of violence and drugs in private schools as there is in Public schools?
You claim it’s factual and a simple statistic. Please source this as I’m interested in knowing how prevalent it is.
Yup, its just been codified into Rugby in the private school
Hard to know with violence – there’s a tonne of variables. In terms of drugs I think there actually might be more of a problem in the private system but it’s less reported upon (reputation management by the schools and parents involved, far more expendible income by student base, less press coverage). You want to link to a research comparison on the amount of weed floating through public as opposed to private schools then be my guest, I’d love to see the statistic. But anecdotally there was no absolutely shortage of dodgy substances floating around the private system in my day, mostly because private students had access to more cash to pay for them with. Again, this was during the “tiger” years.
I’m interested to hear why you automatically assume there is more of these negatives in the public system? Classist judgement perhaps?
Conor did you attend a fee paying school?
Common sense dictates people who pay for education will get better use from it.
Poor people, who’s parents don’t care, are going to fight and bully each other.
My school had a 99% college continuation btw.
Nathan: I’ve been in both State and Semi-Private Schools. That’s why I make anecdotal reference to the drugs issue.
Stephen: “Poor people, who’s parents don’t care, are going to fight and bully each other” – spoken like a true Ross O’Carroll-Kelly
Highest rates of violence and criminal activity is down to young poorly educated badly off males. Factoid of the day . I was educated privately and am also a labor member and i am tired of having to feel like i have to hide that. My parents worked hard to send me to a good school so i could have the best possible chance in life. I found no drug problems or violence problems nor have i ever heard of any fee paying school having the violent issues that occur in many public schools.
So i am not classist i just can afford a good chance at life. I for one would make the same decisions every time.
Who’s asking you to hide anything? I’m also in Labour, and I was also privately educated (at least partially). I’m glad your school experience was a positive one, mine was too on the whole. But that doesn’t mean those without the means or inclination to send their kids to private schools don’t work hard or are without regard for their kids education – a.) that’s an incredibly classist argument and b.) it’s just not true.
Speaking of things that aren’t true – you know well that using the fact that violence and/or drugs didn’t exist at all in your school (a claim I’m skeptical about, as I would be if it were made about any school – but anyway) as an argument that it doesn’t exist in the private system as a whole is bunkem. Rich or poor, private or public, etc etc only one golden rule is true across most cases: teenagers are idiots. I was an idiot as a teenager, pretty much everyone I know was an idiot as a teenager, and chances are you were also an idiot as a teenager. Add excessive expendible income to that situation and you’ll get idiotic decisions being made, generally corralating with the amount of expendible income.
That doesn’t mean every private school has these problems, nor does it mean that public schools are on the whole any better – many may well be much worse. But to make the assumption that those who are sent to public schools have lazy and feckless parents, leading to poorly educated, “badly off”, violent drug addicts infesting the place, without any evidence more than “come on, it’s OBVIOUSLY worse off there” is frankly an infantile and offensively ignorant judgement to make, and it makes me wonder whether you actually know that many people who went through the public system on a personal basis?
The fact that you went through a private system and by all means got a good education isn’t classist, the fact that you’re making negative and blanket assumptions on those who weren’t as lucky as you absolutely is.
@ Conor – cop on to yourself.
Where I come from, and the ethos of the school I attended, was that education is valuable and one should strive to ones own best. This is not the same everywhere, especially where parents regard phone-calls from principals as intrusions into their Jeremy Kyle based afternoon tv schedule.
Obviously in places where parents don’t care drugs and violence will flourish.
“Public schools have lazy and feckless parents, leading to poorly educated, “badly off”, violent drug addicts infesting the place, ”
I never said this at all Conor. To be frank just because you are in labor give you no ground to start throwing around that people are classist or better than one another. I am not classist i am middle class and proud of it just like the majority of the labor party is. It is grossly indecent for you to start lecturing and criticizing me when i only went so far as to say that violence and drug use by and by is higher than in private schools.
@ Nathan – but common sense doesn’t sit well with his sort. They have to fill that chip on their shoulder somehow, so they fill it with the smugness they derive from making ill-informed judgements on those they perceive as wealthy.
He will insist that because he had to wade through overpopulated, smoke filled corridors and to make sure not to display any valuable, so did everyone else.
Nathan: Then let’s see some evidence for that assertion. As I said, I’d love to see the statistic if it is indeed based on more than blanket assumption
Stephen: “This is not the same everywhere, especially where parents regard phone-calls from principals as intrusions into their Jeremy Kyle based afternoon tv schedule” – I’m not sure if you’re trolling, or you seriously need to get out a bit more. Your posts frankly scream of a superiority complex. Do you actually interact with many people of a public school background?
@ Conor – I know plenty of decent people from public schools. I know a few not so decent people aswell. In my experience, there seems to be a higher percentage of bad eggs in public schools then private.
@ Stephen: Cop on yourself.
I went to a non-fee-paying school and graduated a few years back. About 70% of my fellow students moved on to further education; quite a few of us have since moved on to post-grad education. I’ll soon have a post-graduate degree from one of the top 5 universities in the world and I’m still the least educated member of my family, all of whom were educated in the public sector.
The world is not divided into the people whose parents ‘care’ (read: have money) and can send their children to private school and those of us condemned to ‘smoke-filled’ corridors where we have to be wary of our valuables. Actually, the ethos of my school was more-or-less exactly the same as yours, and I got an excellent education the whole way through.
@ Conor: Some excellent posts there.
Dang Stephen. You’re almost a caricature of a private school kid. Between stereotyping public school kids as engaged in violence and drugs and their parents as Jeremy Kyle watching layabouts, I’m genuinely wondering if you’re a troll account or someone so privileged that they view public schools as something out of The Wire.
I think all that Stephen & Conor have really managed to illustrate here is that in some private schools (the ones they attended for example) English grammar and spelling are just not taken seriously enough.
I never said every public school, or even the majority, are a den of despair and immorality as you suggest. Rather, simple logic would dictate, in certain communities and areas, drug use and violence are far more prevalent then in any private school.
I never said all or even most of the parents were layabouts, I’m sure most of them work very hard. Not all, but most. It’s the lazy parents and their misbehaved offspring who give public schools a bad rep.
Stephen & Nathan I mean, apologies Conor – you actually remind me of a young Heaney!
Sarah i completely agree with you. I am not drawing the same conclusions as Mr.Ring but simply saying i believe that violent behavior is more prevalent in Public schools. Not that there is not there fair share in Private schools.
Not saying that my education was better or worse just that is what i believe. I remember quite clearly the many times you got onto me about bullying and really nasty stuff that went on in the Bush.
No school nor system is perfect, but Conor is right in many respects we should have a system that is fair to all students. I am struggling to find some good statistics on this so it would be an interesting paper to read if one has or was written.
Yes we should have a fair system but being realistic that isn’t going to happen until at least our grandchildren’s era. At the end of the day there is a poverty cycle (which includes a parents emphasis or lack there of on education) and its up to the individual on whether they want to break it. Simple as.
Ok, this article and these comments have annoyed me.
When you say “violent behaviour is more prevalent in Public schools” – are you working off percentages like this article? I’m not going to doubt the article – however think of the number of students who go to public school as opposed to private school.
If you have a larger number of students in one, then there isn’t really a fair comparison to make. Which is generally true of this research.
More people go to public schools. As was mentioned in other comments, some of these go into apprenticeships, which would not count as university. Some people don’t do the Leaving certificate as some apprenticeships don’t require them. Similarly, some students go into PLCs. Also, that is not university, but they are not “dossing about on the dole” as seems to be the impression some commenters are under. And yes, some people just leave school when they get to 16, some people fail the leaving cert, some people pass the leaving cert and then do nothing.
It’s not about how much money you can afford to throw at your child. You can throw thousands at your child and they’ll still want to go rock climbing or something instead of learning formulae and theories – whether they are privately or publicly educated.
My mother was not able to spend the money to send me or my sister to a private school. I am now undertaking an undergraduate honours course and my sister is a primary school teacher. Both of went through the public school system, from primary upwards.
When working with numbers, it is always good to remember the numbers that percentages and such pertain from. And, it is always good not to pander to stereotypical situations when trying to defend your point of view.
So I understand going to a private school generally results in us getting better grades but how come it also makes us superior rugby players?
Private schools do make a difference but it’s not necessarily down to the quality of the teaching or parenting. It’s the whole environment that’s geared towards getting into college. I was lucky enough to get a private education because my parents could afford it and wanted it. Most of our teachers were unreal, but a bunch were rubbish and the reason we did well was that there was an expectation that every one of us would go to college, and if you didn’t it was more or less the end of the world. Kids like me who weren’t already self motivated to study worked harder because teachers, parents and peers forced us to. I’m fairly confident that in another environment I would have done miserably in school.
have your say