Fee Paying Schools

jahalpin

No

I went to a fee-paying school from prep 4 (4th class) right up until 6th year and I believe that it was money well spent. I moved from a state school with around 30 people in each class to a school with around 15 in the class, which gave the teacher a lot more time to interact with each pupil.

The fees for most private schools are less than €4,000 a year which is a lot less than they would have to charge if they had to pay for the teachers, teachers are civil servants with civil servant rates of pay and conditions of service so as well as paying for over 4 months holidays a year they would also have to pay a large contribution to the teachers pension fund

My friend lives in England and she has been quoted around £4,500stg to send each of her 2 young children to private school and this will rise to around £8,500 each a year when they goto secondary school

PS: One of the reasons that I moved was because the 4th class teacher I was to have in my old school had had a nervous breakdown years earlier and was still teaching

Terry

Undecided

Pinker wrote:

Did they teach grammar in them schools:rolleyes:..?

Did they teach grammar in those schools? :rolleyes:

ryanairzer

Undecided

I would never send my kid to a fee paying school. It's not my fault the bitch wasn't on the pill and I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay for my bastard's education.

Sinfonia

If it was the Atari Jaguar school.

Lizzykins wrote: »

As someone else said"how will the private school kids cope in the real world when shock horror they have to mix with the rest of us!

That's a load of bollocks.
How would going to a non-fee-paying school make someone more comfortable with other people when they finish?

Lizzykins wrote:

And don't think the results are any great shakes either. If you are not bookish to some extent they don't offer practical subjects like Tech Graphics or Woodwork.

Blackrock do both of those subjects.

JC 2K3

Undecided

eamoss wrote: »

No scumbags in Private schools only wanna-be-scumbags

Which, from a societal perspective, is exactly what's wrong with private schools.

Firstly, how many kids are full blown scumbags at age 12? Not many tbh. Teenage years are such a crucial part of forming one's identity and what one's experience of education is and who one hangs around with during this time is going to be crucial to their personal development. Segregating kids based on their parents relative wealth disillusions kids from poorer families and makes wealthier kids selfish, self-important and pretentious(to varying extents).

I mean, look at some of the responses in this thread, "Private schools offer better subject choices", for example. Better subject choices? Jesus, how pretentious can you get? We're talking about teenagers here. Since when did teenagers become important enough to be accommodated with "better subject choices"? It's the fecking LC ffs.

Also, the selfishness and self importance is evident in some of the responses to this thread. For example, someone mentioned class sizes. You think that just because your parents had money that you deserve to be in a smaller class than someone who's parents didn't?

nesf

Undecided

No. He'll be going to a Gaelscoil. That and I don't see a point in paying four or five grand a year for second level unless your kid is showing a lot of talent in some sport and would benefit from access to the equipment or something.

nesf

Undecided

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Also, the selfishness and self importance is evident in some of the responses to this thread. For example, someone mentioned class sizes. You think that just because your parents had money that you deserve to be in a smaller class than someone who's parents didn't?

Ah, but someone sending their kids to private school is taking some of the burden off the public system and helping to decrease class size in public schools etc.

JC 2K3

Undecided

nesf wrote: »

Ah, but someone sending their kids to private school is taking some of the burden off the public system and helping to decrease class size in public schools etc.

As opposed to letting more people into the private school and balancing the numbers of students between the available schools in a certain area?

nesf

Undecided

JC 2K3 wrote: »

As opposed to letting more people into the private school and balancing the numbers of students between the available schools in a certain area?

Private schools are private entities they aren't part of the public system and we can't reasonably expect them act like it when it would degrade the service that they charge for. It'd be like expecting taxis to charge lower rates when going to areas that aren't near bus routes and allowing people from these areas to skip ahead at the taxi ranks.

ryanairzer

Undecided

It seems like a lose-lose situation. Maybe it's time to disband the education system and hope for the best.

melekalikimaka

No

fee schools have the edge, they canprivide more than public end of story. teachers are teachers, better ones will go to schools of better pay, and fee paying gives better facilties. its a silly question.

phasers

Hedge Schools FTW

I was recently in a private school for a Debate competition
they have separate buildings for different things
and a POOL

and from what I saw their class sizes are tiny and their teachers seem to have all written books on their subjects

anybody that says a good education is free has obviously never seen one of these places

philologos

If it was the Atari Jaguar school.

cson wrote: »

I think it's absolutely ludicrous that the State helps pay the salaries of teachers in these schools, gives money to aid the building costs in Catholic schools and gives aid to Protestant schools due to their minority status. Having been educated in a community school myself I believe it's down to the individual mostly and that if you work hard enough you can achieve everything to an extent. Having said that having a two tier education system is against my principles. I would ideally like to see a more socialist type system where everyone is equal and oney cannot buy one into a supposedly "better" school. I can dream.

I think you're spot on, and I'm just finishing in a fee-paying school this year. In building projects the State have given the school aid in building because we are of minority status.

I also agree with what you say next. You can achieve anything you wish in public schools either, and infact some people (although few) do not achieve what they want in private schools. Although, my school boasts often about our LC and JC results being above the national average, and above the local crammer schools such as the Institute.

I'd be interested in what you say about the "socialist" based school system, what exactly does that entail?

MagicMarker

No

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Firstly, how many kids are full blown scumbags at age 12?

You've obviously never lived where i have lived.

MagicMarker

No

Personally, if a fee paying school were to guarantee a smaller class size (15 or so) and better facilities, teaching and subject choice then of course i would send my children there. Any parent who could afford it would and should.

The amount of times you see a school in a deprived area, such as near Jobstown, Brookfield etc with the Mercs, Beemers and 4x4's queued up outside waiting to pick up their kids is unreal. If i can afford a car like that then i wouldn't send my kid to any old school. Especially in **** holes such as those:)

I may be generalizing here but.... so what!

kittex

If it was the Atari Jaguar school.

I think one of the big issues is that you don't actually have to be a qualified teacher to teach in Ireland.

Someone with a maths degree and no training or experience with young people, can, technically, walk into a school and teach Geography if the school wants them to. My cousin has been taught Leaving Cert Chemistry by a 23 year old with no experience or qualifications other than a History degree.

It happens far too often.

The current system devalues teaching and good, qualified teachers should be valued for the impact they can make.
If I was a parent, I'd be very concerned if someone unqualified was teaching my child, especially if my child had an additional learning need that many unqualfied teachers don't know how to cope with.
I wish more parents would complain about this issue, as maybe then it would be dealt with.

MagicMarker

No

kittex wrote: »

My cousin has been taught Leaving Cert Chemistry by a 23 year old with no experience or qualifications other than a History degree.

No offence, but that sounds like complete bollix

Maclommis

MagicMarker wrote: »

No offence, but that sounds like complete bollix

It actually happens a lot, particularly in rural secondary schools where there is a lack of qualified teachers in particular subjects. I remember the school I went to there were several teachers teaching subjects that were not in their qualified area. It was considered alright if the teacher did that subject at honours level in the leaving cert.

Terry

Undecided

MagicMarker wrote: »

No offence, but that sounds like complete bollix

Why?
Let's be generous here and say the guy started his degree at 17.
He would be 21 when it was finished.

That leaves a maximum of two years to gain experience.

It's not impossible that he could walk into a school right away.
It's also not inconcievable that he spent two years looking for a teaching post.

On the other hand, Thaedydal, people have to start somewhere.
You don't gain experience overnight.

MagicMarker

No

Terry wrote: »

Why?
Let's be generous here and say the guy started his degree at 17.
He would be 21 when it was finished.

That leaves a maximum of two years to gain experience.

It's not impossible that he could walk into a school right away.
It's also not inconcievable that he spent two years looking for a teaching post.

On the other hand, Thaedydal, people have to start somewhere.
You don't gain experience overnight.

The fact that he's teaching isn't ''bollix'', but the fact he has a history degree and is teaching Chemistry sounds like crap to me... I mean, c'mon! Things can't be that bad, how is it even possible to teach something, especially something like chemistry, without knowing anything about it?

I think it's a case of he said she said and the facts given here are a far sight from the truth.

Terry

Undecided

There are no facts given here.
There are only opinions, heresay and assumptions.

MagicMarker

No

Indeed.

RandolphEsq

No

I couldn't speak for what public schools are like, having never attended any. But I did go to a private school, had a very good time, made really good friends, and got a good education. I'd want my kids to have a school experience similar to mine because it really was top notch.

eirebhoy

Undecided

My sister got 520 points and went to public school. The public schools my parents sent us to were excellent. Everyone in my family got what they wanted out of their education which is all that matters. Marian College was where I went.

dame

If it was the Atari Jaguar school.

jahalpin wrote: »

PS: One of the reasons that I moved was because the 4th class teacher I was to have in my old school had had a nervous breakdown years earlier and was still teaching

Ah now, in fairness, people are allowed to recover when they've been ill aren't they? Or would you prefer if that teacher stayed on sick leave or social welfare and disability allowance for the rest of his/her life?

How do you even know the teacher had actually had a nervous breakdown years earlier? The principal wouldn't have wanted an unstable teacher in the school and the doctors wouldn't have signed the teacher off as fit to return to a classroom if something as serious as a nervous breakdown hadn't been treated and overcome. Was it just a case of someone spreading rumours about a person they didn't like?

JC 2K3

Undecided

nesf wrote: »

Private schools are private entities they aren't part of the public system and we can't reasonably expect them act like it when it would degrade the service that they charge for. It'd be like expecting taxis to charge lower rates when going to areas that aren't near bus routes and allowing people from these areas to skip ahead at the taxi ranks.

Ah sure I know that. My point was that segregation of kids based on their socio economic status is wrong.

phasers wrote: »

I was recently in a private school for a Debate competition
they have separate buildings for different things
and a POOL

and from what I saw their class sizes are tiny and their teachers seem to have all written books on their subjects

anybody that says a good education is free has obviously never seen one of these places

Anyone who thinks a good education involves a school with many buildings and a pool is deluded.

And about tiny class sizes and "amazing" teachers. Would you people really be so afraid that your child wouldn't be capable of handling their studies with a bit of independance? Mollycoddling isn't really giving kids the "best opportunity" IMHO.

Conor108

Undecided

I go to a community school. I'm in 4th year and they tell us we got above the national average in the JC. 3 people I think got 10 A's! 30-ish to a class but it's grand. Everyones friendly. Why you'd pay 15 grand for a smaller class

Red Alert

If it was the Atari Jaguar school.

I went to a fee-paying school for secondary and a national school for primary. I enjoyed my time in both of them, and ended up meeting a whole mix of people I'd never otherwise have known. Whenever I have kids the first thing I will look for is a school they'd be happy in. Then I'll be thinking about facilities etc.

ixoy

I almost went to a private school but ended up in a public school, my parents figuring that I'd perform well anywhere. They were right and I don't believe that I would have done any better really in a private school, being the bright studious young man that I once was.

What my school did practice, and which I believe helped everyone, was streaming of all classes based on an entrance exam and then re-examined after annual exams. It meant that your class was full of those people who wanted to study, and perform well, and that, to me, is a very important factor.

kittex

If it was the Atari Jaguar school.

MagicMarker wrote: »

The fact that he's teaching isn't ''bollix'', but the fact he has a history degree and is teaching Chemistry sounds like crap to me... I mean, c'mon! Things can't be that bad, how is it even possible to teach something, especially something like chemistry, without knowing anything about it?

I think it's a case of he said she said and the facts given here are a far sight from the truth.

No it's completely true! Her parents kicked up a stink but as another poster said, no one could be found to take the class. So they read the text book, answered the questions and watched videos of experiments instead of doing them.

You do not have to be qualified as a teacher or even qualified in the subject you even teach. Check it out yourself in the Teaching and Lecturing forum if you wish.
All you need is a degree in a subject on the list, and you register say in that subject. But the school can then, perfectly legally, allow you to teach anything they want. Or you can have any degree for primary.
You could have a marketing degree and be working as a primary school teacher after graduating.
You're not supposed to be permanently emploiyed but plenty get rolling contracts, renewed each year for a number of years.

As for him being 23, very plausible. Leave school at 18, 3 or 4 years at Uni, walk out, pay your registration fee, teach.

Simple.

It's legal, it's condoned, it is normal practice. I think it was the Green party who did a survey and found 1/3 of Irish primary teachers are of this type.

And mammy wonders why Johnny can't spell...

3rd world countries have more restrictions on their teachers than we do.
It's an absolute disgrace and not enough parents in state school push to have properly qualified staff.
Private schools don't stand for it and neither would the paying parents.

Everyone keeps coming back to the smaller classes - that is a must. But Irish schools badly need teachers who know how to teach.