Secondary schools - how many?

O

OhPinchy

Guest
Recently I noticed that the school I used to attend had failed miserably to appear in the Sunday Times Top 400 Secondary Schools list. Fair enough, as it was no great shakes, but it left me wondering - just how many schools are there in Ireland?
 
All the stats you'll ever need.

The answer is 746 with 339,231 students. Approx 450 students per school sounds a lot?
 
OP - Was it the same narrow criteria as used in previous years for defining 'Top', i.e. percentage of students attending 3rd level?
 
I went to a school which had about 500 (each year had three classes of about 30 people each, would be slightly bigger now as I believe there is a transition year as well now) and it was actually considered fairly small. I think the bigger schools would have closer to a thousand so then there must be a few schools with much lower numbers. Does that figure include all types of secondary schools (public, private, comprehensive, vocational etc.)?
 
..

thanks sluice-thats a good source of stats on that website.

The site mentions 'Number of full-time students in institutions aided by the Department of Education, 2002/2003 ' - I'm not sure if private schools are aided by the Dept. so I wouldn't know if this figure is all inclusive.

Yes rainyday - the list was compiled based on the percentage of pupils that went to University (the big 8 I think), and then also the percentage that went to any 3rd level course. I agree that this is a very narrow-minded way to judge the 'top' school - but I bet that some of these high-performing schools also have good extra-curricular activities - e.g. Blackrock with the rugby, St. Andrew's with the Model United Nations....and so if they have the best of both worlds they probably deserve a top spot.

Its schools which don't perform well academically and also don't have a good sporting or extra-curricular setup in place that need to be looked at - in my opinion major funding is need for such schools.
 
Re: ..

Its schools which don't perform well academically and also don't have a good sporting or extra-curricular setup in place that need to be looked at - in my opinion major funding is need for such schools.
Agreed - though production of such league tables tends to result in loss of funding to lower performing schools (either through loss of fee-paying pupils or loss of capitation-fee earning pupils)
 
Re: ..

And so it should !!

Why should government resources be squandered on poorly performing schools, when we could more valuably reward those schools that are serving their communities better by providing top quality education ?

Labour have found this approach to work very well in the UK.

The poorer performing schools can learn from the better ones in the area, thereby dragging their own performance up.
 
Re: ..

hi Noel,

Labour have found this approach to work very well in the UK.

I would be very slow to follow the UK and (England/Wales in particular) in educational matters.

ajapale
 
Re: ..

Why ?

The recent OECD report ranked the UK well above Ireland.

For too long, we have assumed that we have very high standards of education in this country, just because we spend a lot of cash on it.
 
...

but what about areas where all the schools are low-performers? This is often the case in disadvantaged areas. If most funds are given to those schools at the upper end of the school ranking table, then these lower end schools will be left even more underfunded than they currently are.

In a nice middle class area where 4 schools are getting good results and providing a good all round education and 2 schools are performing noticeably worse, its fair enough to reward the high performers. However, in a working class area where ALL the schools are ranked in the lower end of the league tables, surely it does not make sense to punish these schools by giving them less funding than the higher performing schools in the middle class are as it is not comparing like with like? I'm not sure what the solution here is - I can imagine the complexity and issues involved in creating different categories of schools and comparing performance within each group - but I don't think the alternative of simply giving most funding to the highest performing school is beneficial to society as a whole. In Blackrock the focus is on improving students' performance so that they get as many points as possible in the Leaving Cert. In Ballyfermot the emphasis is more on simply increasing the number of students that actually sit and pass the Leaving Cert.

Working class areas need major investment in education in order to provide young people with a full education to give them every oppurtunity to break the cycle and enter into third-level education and/or skilled/professional careers (e.g. how many lawyers per capita grew up in Tallaght as opposed to Dalkey?).


Having attended in a low-performing school and taught in a disadvantaged school, I'm of the opinion that ability is not the issue for many of these pupils - the lack of ambition is the key. I believe that if both pupils and their families in these areas were persuaded that they should undertake some form of further education in order to give them more oppurtunities in life, more pupils would apply themselves more fully to their work and set their ambitions higher. The trouble is in figuring out how to bring about this change and while I'm not exactly sure how to bring this about, I am certain that the current low levels of funding received by these schools is not helping matters.

Maybe increased funding for more and better career counsellors (i.e. better than the guy in my school who must have been on commission from the PLC colleges as he seemed to spend his time dissuading anyone so arrogant as to have applied to a university) would help educate both pupils and their families as to why they should make the effort to achieve as much as possible academically. One suggestion might be to have parents involved in some career counselling sessions so they can fully see what options their child could achieve.
 
Re: ..

Hi Noel,
The recent OECD report ranked the UK well above Ireland

No it didn't! read the report here: www.pisa.oecd.org/documen..._1,00.html

Also read here for an interesting discussion on the Irish rankings for mathematics.


For too long, we have assumed that we have very high standards of education in this country, just because we spend a lot of cash on it.
I agree with this statement.

I just don't think we should use England/Wales as our template. How about Finland or Japan? The English have been fiddling about and tinkering with their education system now for almost 50 years to little useful effect.

I think inappropriate measures such as public league tables have a damaging effect as they drive dysfunctional behaviour. These public league tables help sell Sunday newspapers and little else IMHO.


In terms of an alternative measure of the effectiveness of our educational system I would suggest we need go no further than the afore mentioned OECD report.

ajapale

PS: would any one have any objection if I cut this thread off at the point that the original question was answered (number of schools) and move the discussion concerning the effectiveness of the Irish Education System to 'Letting Off Steam'?
 
Re: ..

The poorer performing schools can learn from the better ones in the area, thereby dragging their own performance up.
Not without decent resources, they can't. If if they can't get the resources until they improve their performance, you've just created a spiral of death, whereby performance & resourcing continually decline and you create a ghetto in the educational system to match the physical ghetto outside.

The pupils attending those schools today only get one chance for an education. If you throw them to the wolves of the competitive market, you risk throwing away the schooling for an entire generation.
 
Back
Top