Fee Paying Schools

HollyB

No

Conor108 wrote: »

Jaysus If I were Taoiseach I'd just nationalize all schools and bring them all up to fee-paying school level. But like they'd be public. God im tired

I think that the costs and the legalities might prove to be a problem there.

Conor108

Undecided

HollyB wrote: »

I think that the costs and the legalities might prove to be a problem there.

Goddamit I'll be Taoiseach I'll do what I want:D MU HA HA AHA HA AHA! then I'll take a payrise:cool:

HollyB

No

Conor108 wrote: »

Goddamit I'll be Taoiseach I'll do what I want:D MU HA HA AHA HA AHA! then I'll take a payrise:cool:

You won't be Taoiseach long if you need to raise the taxes to buy the schools from their respective owners and to pump the money into them to bring them up to scratch - and if you want your pay rise, go for a hefty pension rise instead and accept it on your last day in office.

JC 2K3

Undecided

goodluck2me wrote: »

Firstly, if you have worked hard all of your life caught a few breaks and made some money, why shouldn`t you be at an advantage over someone who spent their life on the dole etc and did little to promote themselves, its competely fair in many cases that money separates people as they`ve often worked hard to obtain it (true that in many cases of old money this doesnt count).

I completely agree, but little Johnny hasn't worked all his life to earn the right to attend a private school, now has he?

goodluck2me wrote: »

Secondly, why is religious ethos a valid reason to segregate people, surely that has a similar effect to segregating through wealth, as they are more unlikely to socialise with the people in other religions.

Because segregating children because their parents want them to receive a faith-orientated education would be on a much smaller scale and wouldn't cause societal division on a similar scale to segregating them based on wealth.

goodluck2me wrote: »

Thirdly, you argue that if you go to private schools you are segregating communities, then likewise if you went to public schools you wouldnt get the chance to meet people with money

But I'm arguing that fee-paying schools should not exist...

goodluck2me wrote: »

People are different and have different needs, what makes you think the public system can deal with/afford to deal with these varied problems?

Since when does the private school system deal with these varied problems? Most fee paying schools operate the exact same way as public ones.

JC 2K3

Undecided

HollyB wrote: »

Excellent point. Does anyone seriously see someone who failed their Leaving Cert successfully taking a claim against a university on the grounds that they discriminated against them by only taking people with more than 500 points on a certain course?

Sigh. You have to WORK to get enough points to get your university course. To get into a private school the child does no work, it just depends on their parents.

HollyB wrote: »

Taking that a step further, why shouldn't you be allowed to let your children benefit from your work and success, whether by providing them with added advantages in childhood and their school years

Becasue it's not fair on the child who is born to poor parents and segregating children of different social classes is not good for society.

thefinalstage

Hedge Schools FTW

goodluck2me wrote:

View Post
Well this is effectively happening in Universities with the points system, people with similar intelligence are grouped together, its a positive thing imo.

HollyB wrote:

Excellent point. Does anyone seriously see someone who failed their Leaving Cert successfully taking a claim against a university on the grounds that they discriminated against them by only taking people with more than 500 points on a certain course?

You do realise that the leaving certificate is not a reflection of intelligence?

HollyB

No

thelastangryman wrote: »

You do realise that the leaving certificate is not a reflection of intelligence?

What do you suggest in its stead? Mandatory aptitude and IQ tests? We can test kids when they're around seven and then divide them into groups based on intelligence levels and depending on your score, you'll be assigned to the university track, the vocational track, the manual labour track, etc.

I remember a book I read on IQ tests for children, published in the early nineties, I believe, listed the various careers a child could aim for based on their IQ score.

The Leaving Cert isn't a perfect system by any means, I don't think that there will ever be such a thing, but bright and hard-working students will generally do well.

thefinalstage

Hedge Schools FTW

HollyB wrote: »

What do you suggest in its stead? Mandatory aptitude and IQ tests? We can test kids when they're around seven and then divide them into groups based on intelligence levels and depending on your score, you'll be assigned to the university track, the vocational track, the manual labour track, etc.

I remember a book I read on IQ tests for children, published in the early nineties, I believe, listed the various careers a child could aim for based on their IQ score.

The Leaving Cert isn't a perfect system by any means, I don't think that there will ever be such a thing, but bright and hard-working students will generally do well.

Just pointing out that its a memory test more than anything.

HollyB

No

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Becasue it's not fair on the child who is born to poor parents and segregating children of different social classes is not good for society.

It's a cliché, but unfortunately life isn't fair to children who are born to poor parents. Banning private schools isn't going to change that. If anything, it would mean that the resources available for education would have to be spread more thinly if all schools were public. A parent may be willing to pay €5,000 a year for a private school (which receives less funding per head than a public school) but that parent cannot be expected or compelled to pay that €5,000 a year to a public school if their child is forced to attend it.

In a capitalist society, people benefit from the money they earn. If they have children, those children will benefit from their parents' money and this is going to impact their education.

If they live in a large house and have their own bedroom, then they have a quiet place to study.
If they have access to their own PC and other educational resources (ie. a set of encyclopaedias) that will give them an advantage.
If they do not have to work part-time to help support themselves or their family, they will have more time to study.
If they can afford any private grinds they may need, then they'll have access to extra help in subjects they are having difficulty with.

These factors help to stack the odds in their favour, perhaps more than an education at a fee-paying school ever could.

Unless you plan on introducing a minimum income level before people are allowed to have a child, then there are going to be children whose parents cannot provide them with the above. I don't see that as a reason to deprive the children whose parents can.

I don't plan on starving my future offspring because children in Third World countries are malnourished, I don't plan on denying him or her access to medical treatment because not everybody has health insurance and I don't plan on denying him or her whatever educational advantages I can provide simply because not everyone has access to them.

With regard to segregating children of different social classes, a degree of that is inevitable even in public schools. Unless you plan on instituting a bussing system, banning private schools won't change that.

HollyB

No

thelastangryman wrote: »

Just pointing out that its a memory test more than anything.

It needs an overhaul, but if there was an accurate way of measuring intelligence and what a student had learned in school, would you be opposed to it being used as the deciding factor in determining who should have access to third-level courses.

If not, what would you suggest instead?

thefinalstage

Hedge Schools FTW

HollyB wrote: »

It needs an overhaul, but if there was an accurate way of measuring intelligence and what a student had learned in school, would you be opposed to it being used as the deciding factor in determining who should have access to third-level courses.

If not, what would you suggest instead?

If there was an accurate way it would be ideal. But wrong none the less.

Its a nice idea in theory but than how would you feel if you were a surgeon and your child was told he would have a menial job at the end of his school life? Would he even bother going to school? And that system would create separate classes of people much like India.
The Leaving Certificate isn't an accurate measure of intelligence but memory alone. A plank can score 600 points if they memorise the material.

HollyB

No

thelastangryman wrote: »

If there was an accurate way it would be ideal. But wrong none the less.

Its a nice idea in theory but than how would you feel if you were a surgeon and your child was told he would have a menial job at the end of his school life? Would he even bother going to school? And that system would create separate classes of people much like India.

I was thinking in terms of an end of school evaluation.

Everyone has access to free primary and secondary education, so it's up to them what they take away from it. obviously, you'll still have some who could work harder than anyone else in their class and not walk away with top grades, just as you will have some who could never open a book outside a class for their entire education and still walk away with more than enough points to qualify for a university course of their choice, but for the majority, hard work will pay off.

The Real B-man

Undecided

Bring on the Ross O' Carroll Kelly's :rolleyes:

thefinalstage

Hedge Schools FTW

HollyB wrote: »

I was thinking in terms of an end of school evaluation.

Everyone has access to free primary and secondary education, so it's up to them what they take away from it. obviously, you'll still have some who could work harder than anyone else in their class and not walk away with top grades, just as you will have some who could never open a book outside a class for their entire education and still walk away with more than enough points to qualify for a university course of their choice, but for the majority, hard work will pay off.

This is getting repetitive but alas... You pointed out earlier that a rich child has a number of things that a poorer child may not by that logic it is not up to the child what they take away from a school it is up to their parents.

HollyB

No

thelastangryman wrote: »

This is getting repetitive but alas... You pointed out earlier that a rich child has a number of things that a poorer child may not by that logic it is not up to the child what they take away from a school it is up to their parents.

Parents can help stack the odds in favour or against their child, but they can't guarantee the outcome. That depends primarily on the child, and on the school.

JC 2K3

Undecided

HollyB wrote: »

It's a cliché, but unfortunately life isn't fair to children who are born to poor parents. Banning private schools isn't going to change that. If anything, it would mean that the resources available for education would have to be spread more thinly if all schools were public. A parent may be willing to pay €5,000 a year for a private school (which receives less funding per head than a public school) but that parent cannot be expected or compelled to pay that €5,000 a year to a public school if their child is forced to attend it.

In a capitalist society, people benefit from the money they earn. If they have children, those children will benefit from their parents' money and this is going to impact their education.

If they live in a large house and have their own bedroom, then they have a quiet place to study.
If they have access to their own PC and other educational resources (ie. a set of encyclopaedias) that will give them an advantage.
If they do not have to work part-time to help support themselves or their family, they will have more time to study.
If they can afford any private grinds they may need, then they'll have access to extra help in subjects they are having difficulty with.

These factors help to stack the odds in their favour, perhaps more than an education at a fee-paying school ever could.

Unless you plan on introducing a minimum income level before people are allowed to have a child, then there are going to be children whose parents cannot provide them with the above. I don't see that as a reason to deprive the children whose parents can.

I don't plan on starving my future offspring because children in Third World countries are malnourished, I don't plan on denying him or her access to medical treatment because not everybody has health insurance and I don't plan on denying him or her whatever educational advantages I can provide simply because not everyone has access to them.

With regard to segregating children of different social classes, a degree of that is inevitable even in public schools. Unless you plan on instituting a bussing system, banning private schools won't change that.

I'm not going to bother. Just read all 20-odd pages of this thread.

thefinalstage

Hedge Schools FTW

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I'm not going to bother. Just read all 20-odd pages of this thread.

Thanks. I wash my hands of you Holly. Your a south sider who is bored. Good day to you.

Time Magazine

If it was the Atari Jaguar school.

thelastangryman wrote: »

Thanks. I wash my hands of you Holly. Your a south sider who is bored. Good day to you.

Good school you went to.

Sonnenblumen

No

Dudess wrote: »

Nothing wrong with a person sending their kids to a private school that's convenient to where they live - provided it's because they've done research into it and have concluded that it's superior to the local public school in terms of facilities and its academic record, not because it'll "keep them away from the knackers" (not all public schools are like Jobstown Community School because not all areas are like Jobstown) or because "it's private, therefore it breeds a better class of people" or because "it's private, therefore it will automatically have better facilities etc" as that is not necessarily true.

What a narrow and silly assessment of what is good decision making. You also forgot to mention that having a Private Schooling is no guarantee of smartness. Still it can be safely assumed to be knacker free.

Do-gooders complaining about Private Schooling would be better to re-direct focus to making impoverished areas better.

Dudess

If it was the Atari Jaguar school.

The standard of education boils down to the individual school - private or public. Those who insist that private schooling is the only way, when there are so many variants to take into account, clearly just don't want their kids being schooled with children who aren't middle-class or upper middle-class. Well there's a lot of new money in Ireland today, and there are plenty of "riff-raff" who can quite easily afford to send their kids to private schools.

Sonnenblumen

No

I'm afraid you'll need more than money to enter a WASP school.

Dudess

If it was the Atari Jaguar school.

Well at least WASP schools encourage tolerance.

thefinalstage

Hedge Schools FTW

Ibid wrote: »

Good school you went to.

Indeed it was. South and sider are two separate words.

HollyB

No

Dudess wrote: »

The standard of education boils down to the individual school - private or public. Those who insist that private schooling is the only way, when there are so many variants to take into account, clearly just don't want their kids being schooled with children who aren't middle-class or upper middle-class. Well there's a lot of new money in Ireland today, and there are plenty of "riff-raff" who can quite easily afford to send their kids to private schools.

Not necessarily. I agree with you on judging each school, public or private, on its own merits - I went to an absolutely fantastic public Gaelscoil and would recommend it wholeheartedly - but it would be wrong to assume that someone who opts for private schools is doing so purely because they want their child to mix only with middle-class children.

It's very possible that they themselves have had an awful experience of public schools, or that the public schools in their area aren't exactly stellar. It could also be the opposite situation, that they had a wonderful experience of private school and want the same for their child.

In don't deny that snobbery may be an issue for some but I doubt that is the case with everybody who wants to send their child to a private school.

mikedragon32

No

thelastangryman wrote: »

Indeed it was. South and sider are two separate words.

That's as may be, however, "your" is not the correct abbreviation of "you are".

Unless of course Holly owns something called an "a south sider who", in which case you're quite right and it's terrible that her a south sider who is bored.

Lockstep

Undecided

I went to a private school and it was awful,

my old man was a teacher so I went for free but the school was the biggest bunch of self important spoiled tosspots imaginable. I knew a girl who got more allowance than my dad earned. The school did offer a wide variety of subjects but the very nature of the school with no riff-raff, security guards and spoon feeding of students. Nearly all the kids did very well in the leaving cert, but the fact is, most of the ones I went to university with have dropped out and are finding university far too hard for them, despite getting outstanding marks in the LC.

Reason? The school offered small classes and teachers spoon feeding students what they needed for the exams. Once the students went out into the real world they just couldn't cope with the fact that University lecturers wouldnt tell them what they needed to study for the exams, wouldn't chase them down to hand in assignments or back them to the hilt.

My problem with that school was that it was horrifically sheltered and in no way prepared students for the real life. They never had to deal with difficult people, drugs, personal responsibility or self discipline as they were essentially institutionalised. Once they had to go to uni with normal kids, classes that would start without you and assignments the teachers wouldnt chase you on, they just couldnt cope.

My brother goes to a public school now, and it suits him far far better. Your given more freedom meaning the kids learn from a far younger age about personal responsiblity, rather than failing the first year of university.



The fact is folks, that privatised institutions only exist to make money. While I can already see the argument that an inefficient and bad school will get no clients, but my own school was atrocious. Fascist teachers with pictures of Mussolini and Stalin on the walls, chemistry teachers teaching biology, a man with absolutely no qualifications teaching history etc etc. if everyone was to send their kids to a state school then there would greater investment in them as rich and powerful people would want to protect the interests of their own kids. Also, a state that provides poor quality education will lose votes and education is an important issue for most people, meaning a government needs to have a good education system if possible.


Basically, the idea of private school disgusts me. WHy should anyone have the right to better education just because they are richer? Granted I was in a private school system myself but now that my younger siblings are in public, they much much prefer it.


Also, public schools are socially divisive. keeps those nasty council estate children who smell of fish fingers away from little Tarquin and Anastasia I suppose.

Sonnenblumen

No

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The fact is folks, that privatised institutions only exist to make money.

QUOTE]


Not wishing to prick your baloon, but Private=Business=Profit making. It obviously seems strange to you, but what is wrong with running a private business in private schooling? I eman there are many parallels throughout the community?

HollyB

No

kickoutthejams wrote: »

if everyone was to send their kids to a state school then there would greater investment in them as rich and powerful people would want to protect the interests of their own kids. Also, a state that provides poor quality education will lose votes and education is an important issue for most people, meaning a government needs to have a good education system if possible.

Not necessarily in the state system as a whole.

A parent's priority is going to be their own child's education. They may make voluntary contributions to their child's school, or donate their time for fundraising, which will benefit their child's school, but you could find that they will be far less inclined to do so if all or part of the money they are providing to their child's school is taken from that school and given to a school where parents can't or don't make the same level of contribution.

Individual schools will have different catchment areas, and it is inevitable that there will be a much higher concentration of middle-class/upper middle-class students in some, and a much higher concentration of disadvantaged students in another.

We could see a situation where every state school gets the teachers' salaries and the basic capitation grants, etc, but that a school in a better-off area has more resources available to them through parental contributions than a school in a more disadvantaged area.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Also, public schools are socially divisive. keeps those nasty council estate children who smell of fish fingers away from little Tarquin and Anastasia I suppose.

If you live in an area with high house prices and no council estates nearby, then little Tarquin and Anastasia are unlikely to be mixing with council estate children even if they do go to a public school.

Leon11

I think the schooling system will remain the same and that it would be unwise to change its current state.

I went to a public school and we had our share of idiots who didn't want to be there. I've also taught rugby in a private school with its fair share of idiots who didn't want to be there.

Every school faces the same problems however in private schools there is greater control and problems that arise are dealt with very quickly. It was an eye opener to me as some of the things that students in my own school done a daily basis were instantly reported and corrected in private schools.

If parents have the money they are perfectly entitled to send their children to a school where they believe their child will be offered a better learning environment. If they send a child to a private school simply because of the fact that they would not consider a public school due to its perceived reputation they are extremely foolish and have no regard for the money in their back pocket. I often found that the most obnoxious kids in private schools were the ones whose parents were the type who sent their kids there solely because of it's name, these were the very same parents who often belittled their children at games. On the other hand some of the best kids I came across had brilliant parents who were extremely supportive and would talk to me during games asking me how they were getting on and if everything was okay for them.

I think that it's fairly important to have the backing of your family in order for you to do well most of the time.

HollyB

No

mikedragon32 wrote: »

That's as may be, however, "your" is not the correct abbreviation of "you are".

Unless of course Holly owns something called an "a south sider who", in which case you're quite right and it's terrible that her a south sider who is bored.

I didn't get one of those for Christmas. Since I don't even live in Dublin, I didn't think to ask Santa for "a south sider who".