Fee Paying Schools

Pythia

No

Terry wrote: »

Hmm.
Dosn't sound like something you would usually say.

I hope someone else isn't using your account.

OMG, would you let up!

Pythia

No

JC 2K3 wrote: »

It goes back to the point I was making against Sonnenblumen earlier in this thread, why is a child of poorer parents less deserving of a place in a private school?

Why is any child less deserving than any other for any reason?
They aren't, but unfortunately life's not fair. There is huge inequality in the world and I don't think this one is the worst. It's all to do with luck in regards to what family you're born into.

Goodluck2me

No

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Because in just a capitalist system, people should gain advantages through their own hard work, and as far as is possible, equal opportunity should be afforded to all.

It goes back to the point I was making against Sonnenblumen earlier in this thread, why is a child of poorer parents less deserving of a place in a private school?

So by the same standards you shouldnt pay for nice meals or clothes for your children because, you know, there are other kids who don`t have the same chance to eat/wear them?

The only public schools bad enough that I wouldn't send my child to would be in severely socially disadvantaged areas. If I was earning enough to afford to pay private school fees, I wouldn't be living in such an area.

The schools are funded by the state not the local area, the facilites in schools like Tallght etc are likely to be better than those in more established areas as the Tallaght area is newer and therefore so are the schools.
I dont see how the fact the area is disadvantaged means that the school facilities and teachers MUST be bad.

johnnyskeleton

janeybabe26 wrote: »

I think you might be talking about grind schools there. They're different from fee-paying/private schools. In fact, I have heard people define them as 'institutions' rather than schools. (And that's not necessarily a bad thing.)

I wasn't, other than insofar as somone repeating the leaving cert cannot do it in a non-fee paying school and so must, of necessity, pay fees. But I don't really see the difference between going to bruce college or the institute full time and, for example, going to Blackrock college and the like. You are paying fees in either case, and it's more a question of which school you want to go to than them being different types of school.

Toto Wolfcastle

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I wasn't, other than insofar as somone repeating the leaving cert cannot do it in a non-fee paying school and so must, of necessity, pay fees. But I don't really see the difference between going to bruce college or the institute full time and, for example, going to Blackrock college and the like. You are paying fees in either case, and it's more a question of which school you want to go to than them being different types of school.

You can repeat the Leaving Cert in a non-fee paying school. Why couldn't you? I know of people who repeated in the school they went to, and of people who repeated in different non-fee paying schools than the one they originally attended.

The difference between grind 'schools' and private schools such as Blackrock is that grind schools don't offer the range of extra-curricular activities, trips, etc that a private school does. (Or even that a public school does.) The focus is purely on academics.
So yes, I would see themas being different types of schools.

JC 2K3

Undecided

Pythia wrote: »

Why is any child less deserving than any other for any reason?
They aren't, but unfortunately life's not fair. There is huge inequality in the world and I don't think this one is the worst. It's all to do with luck in regards to what family you're born into.

But to say "life's not fair" is a cop out. It's not a fact you should have to accept and not have any beliefs against the current system. And of course this isn't the worst case of inequality in the world, but social inequalities must be dealt with in our own country before we can address bigger and more global issues.

goodluck2me wrote: »

So by the same standards you shouldnt pay for nice meals or clothes for your children because, you know, there are other kids who don`t have the same chance to eat/wear them?

Well, I wouldn't spoil my children. Yes, parents do have a right to spend as much money as they like on their children, but having money should not give them the right to segregate them based on their social class.

goodluck2me wrote: »

The schools are funded by the state not the local area, the facilites in schools like Tallght etc are likely to be better than those in more established areas as the Tallaght area is newer and therefore so are the schools.
I dont see how the fact the area is disadvantaged means that the school facilities and teachers MUST be bad.

I don't think you've being following my argument. The importance of facilities in a school is way overrated(I mean I can't honestly think of any non-standard facility that would make any difference to my child's education) and there's no way of knowing what the teachers are like in any school, but I personally don't believe that any school is cursed by a majority of absolutely woeful teachers.

Therefore, the only factor to take into consideration would be the type of students attending the school, and given that the school is in a semi-respectable area, I'm confident that severe troublemakers would be a minority.

HollyB

No

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Because in just a capitalist system, people should gain advantages through their own hard work, and as far as is possible, equal opportunity should be afforded to all.

It goes back to the point I was making against Sonnenblumen earlier in this thread, why is a child of poorer parents less deserving of a place in a private school?

But in the cases of children, their parents' financial status is going to impact them, for better or worse, and a child of well-off parents will benefit from their parents' money. Chances are, they'll live in a larger house, perhaps in a safer neighbourhood with more local amenities. Perhaps they'll have easier access to music lessons, ballet, and other extra curricular activities. Maybe they'll have more of an opportunity to travel.

Should a parent who can afford to buy their child a PC not buy one solely because not every parent can afford one for their child? What about bikes or toys? In which ways is it acceptable for a child to benefit from their parents' financial status, and in which ways is it unacceptable?

A child who is covered by a private health insurance policy paid for by their parents is likely to have quicker access to medical facilities and tests, and may be treated at private hospitals and clinics as well as public ones. Would anyone seriously argue that someone who has private medical insurance should choose not to avail of the advantages it would afford their child, that they should make them wait weeks, months, possibly years longer for public treatment and put them through unnecessary inconvenience, illness and pain rather than giving them an unearned advantage by going private?

Most parents want what's best for their kids, and education is a huge part of that. I firmly believe that when choosing a school for their child, a parent's concern should be what's in the best interests of the child. If they think that their child will enjoy a better education in a private school and they can afford the fees, then I can't fault them for sending them there. There may be a few who would opt for a private school that was inferior to the local public school for the sake of being able to say that their child is attending a private school, but I would hope that they are in the minority.

A public school education is the right of every Irish child (apparently the children of non-EU students studying here aren't entitled to attend public schools because they can't be a financial burden on the State - http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=TribuneFTF&id=106516&SUBCAT=&SUBCATNAME=&DT=04/11/2007%2000:00:00&keywords=private%20school&FC - so it would be inaccurate to say that every child in the country is entitled to it) and if some of the public schools aren't up to scratch, that's an issue that needs to be taken up with the Department of Education. An education in a private school is a luxury, and like all luxuries, it will be the people with money who can afford it for their children.

For myself, I don't have children yet but if I do, a lot will depend on what the local public schools are like -v- the local private schools. I would also prefer all-Irish schools, and I'm not sure how many fee-paying Irish schools there are, but if I could afford the tuition fees and felt that my child would be better off in a fee-paying school, I would definitely send him or her there.

HollyB

No

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Well, I wouldn't spoil my children. Yes, parents do have a right to spend as much money as they like on their children, but having money should not give them the right to segregate them based on their social class.

You don't need to send them to private schools to do this; if you're living in an area where most, if not all, of your neighbours are very comfortable financially, their children will be the ones your children will be playing with when they're small, and the ones they'll be attending preschool with when the time comes, before moving on to primary school - and depending on the school's catchment area, you may find that the vast majority of students are from a similar social class.

JC 2K3

Undecided

HollyB wrote: »

In which ways is it acceptable for a child to benefit from their parents' financial status, and in which ways is it unacceptable?

I don't think it's acceptable for parents to spoil a child, but there's no way of drawing a line and regulating this. However, school is more than simply education, it's when a child begins to integrate into society beyond their own family. If this country is to discourage segregation based on social class, then it should not allow the segregation of children of different social classes. Simple as that.

HollyB wrote:

You don't need to send them to private schools to do this; if you're living in an area where most, if not all, of your neighbours are very comfortable financially, their children will be the ones your children will be playing with when they're small, and the ones they'll be attending preschool with when the time comes, before moving on to primary school - and depending on the school's catchment area, you may find that the vast majority of students are from a similar social class.

In fairness, in the majority of cases this will not be true.

Ace2007

Just because someone goes to a grind school, say for example the institute of education, doesn't mean that there parents are rich, but the chances are people on here and in general have this idea that anybody who pays 4/5K for a year in a grind school are rich and don't think that maybe their parents work hard for their sons/daughters education and wants the best for them.

JC 2K3

Undecided

Grind schools are not being discussed here. That's a whole other topic.

HollyB

No

Ace2007 wrote: »

Just because someone goes to a grind school, say for example the institute of education, doesn't mean that there parents are rich, but the chances are people on here and in general have this idea that anybody who pays 4/5K for a year in a grind school are rich and don't think that maybe their parents work hard for their sons/daughters education and wants the best for them.

Excellent point. I know that in some cases, parents start saving very early, banking the Child Benefit payments (at the moment, the first child gets a little under two thousand a year) to use them for private school fees at second level and to put towards costs while the child is attending university. In other cases, they might opt to go on a holiday in Ireland instead of abroad, or to buy a new car every three years instead of every year, choosing instead to invest the money in their child's education.

Obviously, there are some who won't be able to afford the fees, but private schools aren't just for the children of multi-millionaires.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

In fairness, in the majority of cases this will not be true.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, especially as suburban areas become more densely populated. If a few big "luxury" housing developments are constructed, within the catchment area of a school established to cater for the new population, then the majority of the pupils of that school will be children of families who can afford one of those houses. A school in a disadvantaged area is likely to have a higher percentage of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, so the reverse would be true of advantaged areas.

Short of instituting a system where children are bussed to other schools - ie. children in a disadvantaged area are enrolled to a school further away from their home, in a more well-off area while the children who live near that school are sent to the school in the disadvantaged area - a degree of division by social class is inevitable.

HollyB

No

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Grind schools are not being discussed here. That's a whole other topic.

Aren't they fee-paying schools?

JC 2K3

Undecided

Well, they generally only accept 5th and 6th years and operate very differently to other schools.

In any case, personally, I don't give a damn if parents work really hard so their children can go to private schools. In the exact same way that parents who happen to have a lot of money shouldn't be able to segregate their children from children from a less well off background, a parent shouldn't be able to work very hard so their child can be segregated from children who's parents can't afford fee paying schools.

HollyB

No

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Well, they generally only accept 5th and 6th years and operate very differently to other schools.

But if they are still schools, where pupils pay tuition fees, I would have thought that they would be under the "fee-paying schools" umbrella.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

In any case, personally, I don't give a damn if parents work really hard so their children can go to private schools. In the exact same way that parents who happen to have a lot of money shouldn't be able to segregate their children from children from a less well off background, a parent shouldn't be able to work very hard so their child can be segregated from children who's parents can't afford fee paying schools.

Why do you assume that a parent's motive in selecting a fee-paying school for their child would be to segregate him or her from children whose parents could not afford the tuition fees?

If the fee-paying school has smaller class sizes, a stronger academic record, more facilities and extra curricular activities, etc, than the local public school, is it really so wrong for a parent to want their child to have the best education they can give them? At the end of the day, their priority has to be their own child and his or her future. If a parent wants to work and save to send their child to a fee-paying school because they feel that it will provide him or her with the best possible start in life, I applaud that.

Ideally, if I was running a private school, I would want to be able to offer full scholarships to some acadmically gifted students from disadvantaged backgrounds - but chances are that if I tried that in Ireland, there'd be outrage about "cherry-picking" bright students.

Slice

Undecided

In the case of many oriental countries sending your child to a fee-paying school is seen as a remedial step to address the child's poor performance in the public education system as oppose to a low regard for the public education system itself.

JC 2K3

Undecided

HollyB wrote: »

Why do you assume that a parent's motive in selecting a fee-paying school for their child would be to segregate him or her from children whose parents could not afford the tuition fees?

I'm not making assumptions on motives, I'm saying that the single biggest difference between public and private schools is the segreagation of social classes.

HollyB wrote: »

If the fee-paying school has smaller class sizes, a stronger academic record, more facilities and extra curricular activities, etc, than the local public school, is it really so wrong for a parent to want their child to have the best education they can give them?

The subject of whether private schools are consistantly better than public schools has been discussed in depth in this thread and the conclusion, as far as I could see it, was that the standard of education varied from school to school, but whether a school was public or private had little bearing on this. Therefore, it can be said that a school does not need fees to provide a superior standard of education. Of course it isn't wrong that a parent would want the best for their child, but I'm arguing that they shouldn't have the choice to send their child to a fee paying school.

HollyB

No

JC 2K3 wrote: »

The subject of whether private schools are consistantly better than public schools has been discussed in depth in this thread and the conclusion, as far as I could see it, was that the standard of education varied from school to school, but whether a school was public or private had little bearing on this. Therefore, it can be said that a school does not need fees to provide a superior standard of education.

Hence the "if". If the fee-paying school is inferior to the public school that your child would otherwise be attending, then I think it would be pretty daft to pay a few thousand a year for the fee-paying school, but if the standards in a specific fee-paying school are higher than those in the local public school, then I would agree with a parent who sent their child to the fee-paying school.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Of course it isn't wrong that a parent would want the best for their child, but I'm arguing that they shouldn't have the choice to send their child to a fee paying school.

You want to remove the constitutional right of parents to direct their child's education?

Parents are legally entitled to send their children to private schools. As long as there is a demand for places in private schools, there will be private schools. The only way to remove the choice for parents to send their children to private schools would be to take away their constitutional rights.

mloc

No

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Of course it isn't wrong that a parent would want the best for their child, but I'm arguing that they shouldn't have the choice to send their child to a fee paying school.

People get different opportunities, some people do better than others, some people have more money than others and some people are more successful than others. Deal with it, or try communism and convince yourself that in reality its any different.

Dudess

If it was the Atari Jaguar school.

I would send my kids to whatever school I deemed the better one in the area - if it was private and I had the money, I would send them there; if it was public, I would send them there.
But I wouldn't simply assume the private one was the better one just because it has to be paid for. That might be applicable when it comes to other goods and services, but not schools.

HollyB

No

Dudess wrote: »

I would send my kids to whatever school I deemed the better one in the area - if it was private and I had the money, I would send them there; if it was public, I would send them there.

Same here, I'd have to look at the subject choices available at each school, class sizes, academic record and the facilities and extra curricular activities available before making a choice.

As well as that, the pupils in the school would be cause for concern - what is the attitude to school amongst them? Is there a high drop-out rate? Are there many troublemakers and disruptive pupils. Is there a lot of bullying, drug use, etc, in the school. On this point, it is likely that I would have to rely fairly heavily on word of mouth advertising.

I certainly wouldn't put my child in an inferior school for the sake of having him or her in a fee-paying school, but I also wouldn't keep him or her in the public school system, at the expense of his or her education, out of a misguided desire to ensure that he or she was mixing with every social class under the sun, not if that compromised his or her education.

He or she will be going to the best school I can manage to get him or her into, whether that school is public or fee-paying.

JC 2K3

Undecided

HollyB wrote: »

Parents are legally entitled to send their children to private schools. As long as there is a demand for places in private schools, there will be private schools. The only way to remove the choice for parents to send their children to private schools would be to take away their constitutional rights.

There'd be no removal of any constitutional rights. Schools just wouldn't be allowed to only allow children to attend their school if their parents had the money to pay for it. Schools aren't currently allowed only admit only intelligent children to schools, is this a violation of parents' constitutional rights?

mloc wrote: »

People get different opportunities, some people do better than others, some people have more money than others and some people are more successful than others. Deal with it, or try communism and convince yourself that in reality its any different.

I love when you're trying to argue something, you've expressed your points as coherently as possible, you've clearly implied that this is an idealistic goal that you'd like to see implemented in the future and that a certain point, in this case "life isn't fair, deal with it", is irrelevent, and yet someone still comes out with it.

HollyB

No

JC 2K3 wrote: »

There'd be no removal of any constitutional rights. Schools just wouldn't be allowed to only allow children to attend their school if their parents had the money to pay for it.

Bunreacht na h&#201 wrote: »

Article 42.1
The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

Article 42.2
Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

Article 42.3.1
The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

As things stand, parents are constitutionally entitled to provide for the education of their children according to their means and to send their children to private schools. They cannot be obliged to send their child to any type of school designated by the State - including non fee-paying schools.

Banning fee-paying schools would effectively be obliging parents to send their children to non fee-paying schools, so the State cannot do that.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Schools aren't currently allowed only admit only intelligent children to schools, is this a violation of parents' constitutional rights?

Personally, I would be completely in favour of allowing for the establishment of schools and programs for gifted children. Providing for the special needs of highly intelligent children has proven beneficial in other countries.

RandolphEsq

No

Just send them to St. Michael's. Simple as.

HollyB

No

BrightEyes wrote: »

Just send them to St. Michael's. Simple as.

St. Michael's?

JC 2K3

Undecided

HollyB wrote: »

As things stand, parents are constitutionally entitled to provide for the education of their children according to their means and to send their children to private schools. They cannot be obliged to send their child to any type of school designated by the State - including non fee-paying schools.

Banning fee-paying schools would effectively be obliging parents to send their children to non fee-paying schools, so the State cannot do that.

Parents should be fully entitled to educate their children as they wish, but not to set up a private school which excludes on the basis of wealth. Private schools should have a proper reason to exist such as a religious ethos. Children should have to fit the requirements for such a school to be admitted and parents should have to pay fees only if it is within their means to do so. Most private schools which exist now function as institutions which segregate different social classes of children, and that, as I have exhaustively stated, is my sole problem with them.

HollyB wrote: »

Personally, I would be completely in favour of allowing for the establishment of schools and programs for gifted children. Providing for the special needs of highly intelligent children has proven beneficial in other countries.

I'm not sure about this one tbh. I think the current system where schools can discriminate on behalf of parents' wealth, but not on behalf of a child's intelligence is ridiculous, however, I'd fear that the children might turn out as weirdos. I think it would be unhealthy if a child never got to mix with children of different intelligent levels, but lets not debate this here.

mloc

No

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Parents should be fully entitled to educate their children as they wish, but not to set up a private school which excludes on the basis of wealth.

So would you also argue that everyone should be paid the same wage and that all children should all wear the same priced clothes, go on the same priced holidays and only enjoy hobbies which are within everyone's means?

JC 2K3

Undecided

mloc wrote: »

So would you also argue that everyone should be paid the same wage and that all children should all wear the same priced clothes, go on the same priced holidays and only enjoy hobbies which are within everyone's means?

No, that would make me a communist.

I have no problems with the current capitalist system, I just think that there should be a limit to the advantages that a child should get depending on their parents financial status.(How well someone does in life should be determined by the work they put into it, not by luckily being born into a well off family.)

In terms of creating a society with a healthy mindset and minimal discrimination, school is a MUCH bigger deal than other things a childs' parents may buy them.

Timans

The sad fact of the matter is that as one fee paying service is banished, another comes into play.

Fee Paying Uni's GONE. Fee Paying Secondary Schools IN.

Just because it has happened doesn't make it alright and I would agree that they should not be in existance. It would be different if these schools didn't do everything in their power to get the best teachers available.

A state school cannot compete with the wage offers offered by fee paying schools. This essentially takes away from state schools which I think, is people's main gripe with the fee paying system.

mloc

No

JC 2K3 wrote: »

How well someone does in life should be determined by the work they put into it, not by luckily being born into a well off family.

How is being born into a well off family all that much different, in terms of life advantage, from being born with great athletic ability, great learning ability or simply born without serious mental or physical abnormality?

If you accept the premise that private and public schools are educationally neither better nor worse than each other in general, then your argument that how well someone does in life is affected by the existence of private schools is lacking.