Do private schools have a place in society?

Milk & Honey

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Difference is they probably won't want too and they certainly won't be able to afford it either.

So they will have the money to go to a private school and pay thousands per annum. If the fees go up and they have to go to a normal school they suddenly won't want "what best for their children"? The money saved by not paying fees will disappear?
The only people that will fall into that category are those in fee paying schools who are dodging paying their fees. They are double spongers free loading at everyones expense.

Chucky the tree

steddyeddy wrote: »

A lot of people cant currently afford hence my problem with funding the development of a two tier system.

Problem is you haven't come up with any ideas on how we can afford it.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

So they will have the money to go to a private school and pay thousands per annum. If the fees go up and they have to go to a normal school they suddenly won't want "what best for their children"? The money saved by not paying fees will disappear?
The only people that will fall into that category are those in fee paying schools who are dodging paying their fees. They are double spongers free loading at everyones expense.

They can still afford old fees, but not new ones which will increase. They will want what is best for their child, but they will realise that they can't afford it. For example in private school of 500 pupils paying 4k each that will earn €2m for the private school which will allow them invest significantly in that school. However in a public school of 500 that might only have 150 private kids then those parents will only raise €600k. Secondly parents might not want to pay for everyone elses improved education, I know I probably won't donate large money to a school when the majority of other parents could be arsed. Thirdly people send their kids to private school not just because of facilities but mainly because of his the behaviour of other kids. No amount of money will allow a parent have trouble-making kids in public schools ****'d out.

secretambition

Chucky the tree wrote: »

No amount of money will allow a parent have trouble-making kids in private schools ****'d out.

I'm not convinced on this one. I think that private schools generally kick out badly behaving kids quicker because they know that people who are paying fees expect certain standards in return. I'm not saying it's fair. I'm saying that's the way it is. I also think they are slower to accept kids who they suspect might be trouble-makers in the first place. I went to a private school and I would say there were about 10 people gotten rid of by early second year. I say "gotten rid of" because they often don't expel, they ask the student to leave. This works in both parties favour. The kid doesn't have an expulsion on their record and the school is in a legally safer place.

Mossess

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Thirdly people send their kids to private school not just because of facilities but mainly because of his the behaviour of other kids. No amount of money will allow a parent have trouble-making kids in private schools ****'d out.

I totally agree. When the time comes I will be sending my kids to the best school I can get them into.
Private or public. Actually thinking about it, the best one is public, but don't live near enough to it, so the odds of getting there a very slim. After that is a private school. I'm only an average Joe earning an average Joe wage. But I'll cut my cloth to make it work.

Chucky the tree

I meant to say public schools there instead of private. Basically if parents see other kids in public schools disrupting class and messing and the teacher can't do much about it then they won't donate a **** load of money to that school. Also that is far less likely to happen in private schools as kids who cause trouble won't last long.

twinytwo

i have been to both a public and private ss, and i can say that even if i hve to sell my kidneys my kids will never go to a public school in this country.

steddyeddy

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Problem is you haven't come up with any ideas on how we can afford it.

The problem is its creating a two tier system. We have seen that those in private schools are two years ahead in term of literacy. I believe one hundred per cent that parents who want to send their children to private school are and always should be entitled to do so.

I dont believe the state should fund these schools though. To do so would be state sponsored elitism in my humble opinion.

The state shouldnt be sending a message to children that they will support a system that pushes through more pupils whose parents can afford to pay more. This would go some way towards getting rid of the notion some people have that college is only for a person from a certain class of society.

You say it would be a bad thing to drop state funding because some parents would no longer be able to afford it. The thing is a lot of parents would love to send their kids to such a school but no matter how many sacrifices they make they would be unable to do so. So currently theres a lot of people who cant afford to go there why would it be worse if the slightly better off couldnt afford to send their kids there?

steddyeddy

College attendence should be one hundred per cent based on intelligence and hard work not what school you attend.

secretambition

I think that the solution is actually to get much toughter on discipline in public schools. Give teachers more powers to expel. Give them more legal protection in order to do this. Make it so that there is good discipline and classes progress well in both schools. We sort of have an attitude in Ireland that anyone under 18 is a child and any bad behaviour should be tolerated again and again, when really we should be teaching kids to assume more responsibility bit by bit as they approach 18. I honestly believe that if you are in secondary school, and assuming there is nothing wrong with you, you are old enough to understand the consequence of expulsion for bad behaviour and if you get yourself kicked out, deal with it. Go find somewhere else to let you study. We have over-babied kids that grow into over-babied adults and don't understand personal responsibility.

steddyeddy

secretambition wrote: »

I think that the solution is actually to get much toughter on discipline in public schools. Give teachers more powers to expel. Give them more legal protection in order to do this. Make it so that there is good discipline and classes progress well in both schools. We sort of have an attitude in Ireland that anyone under 18 is a child and any bad behaviour should be tolerated again and again, when really we should be teaching kids to assume more responsibility bit by bit as they approach 18. I honestly believe that if you are in secondary school, and assuming there is nothing wrong with you, you are old enough to understand the consequence of expulsion for bad behaviour and if you get yourself kicked out, deal with it. Go find somewhere else to let you study. We have over-babied kids that grow into over-babied adults and don't understand personal responsibility.

I agree one hundred per cent but I dont want good kids in disadavantaged schools getting the message that their chance to go to college depends on their parents finances.

secretambition

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree one hundred per cent but I dont want good kids in disadavantaged schools getting the message that their chance to go to college depends on their parents finances.

Well my thinking was that if we could get discipline really good in public schools so that the teacher focuses completely on teaching and not spending half their time giving out, it would lead to a more equal chance of going to college, regardless of the type of school the child went to, as there would be less "trouble-makers" holding things back in public schools.

As regard the state funding private schools, I believe public schools get approx. €8000 per child per year, whereas private get €4000. Now in my experience, bar a few of the very wealthy, most parents making the decision to pay fees, have to think about it and many make sacrifices to do it, and I think if you added another €4000 per year to the fees to make up the difference after abolisihing state funding for private schools, a huge number would go public, costing more to the taxpayer. Private schools do actually save the state money.

Chucky the tree

steddyeddy wrote: »

The problem is its creating a two tier system. We have seen that those in private schools are two years ahead in term of literacy. I believe one hundred per cent that parents who want to send their children to private school are and always should be entitled to do so.

I dont believe the state should fund these schools though. To do so would be state sponsored elitism in my humble opinion.

The state shouldnt be sending a message to children that they will support a system that pushes through more pupils whose parents can afford to pay more. This would go some way towards getting rid of the notion some people have that college is only for a person from a certain class of society.

You say it would be a bad thing to drop state funding because some parents would no longer be able to afford it. The thing is a lot of parents would love to send their kids to such a school but no matter how many sacrifices they make they would be unable to do so. So currently theres a lot of people who cant afford to go there why would it be worse if the slightly better off couldnt afford to send their kids there?

So you think everyones literacy and numeracy skills geting worse is best for everyone? I don't, while it would be ideal to not have a two tier system it's far better for a country to produce well educated people who go onto college, then move onto well paid jobs.

It would be a bad thing to drop funding because this will lead to increase in spending for the Government, a most likely increase in class sizes for everyone and thus potentially an even further decrease in peoples numeracy and literacy ability.

steddyeddy wrote: »

College attendence should be one hundred per cent based on intelligence and hard work not what school you attend.

It is. If you work hard and are intelligent you will go to college, no matter what school you attended.

AeoNGriM

amacca wrote: »

oh jesus not this again.................

Not sure why you replied to the thread then, or even clicked on the damn thing. Fairly obvious from the title what the subject matter is.

:rolleyes:

steddyeddy

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So you think everyones literacy and numeracy skills geting worse is best for everyone? I don't, while it would be ideal to not have a two tier system it's far better for a country to produce well educated people who go onto college, then move onto well paid jobs.

Its not all public schools that are two years behind. I dont believe that private school children are any less intelligent than the rest of us. As previous posters here said theres nothing to stop a child from a disadvantaged background getting to college. If thats true theres certainly nothing stopping a slightly better off child going to college.

Not ideal for a two tier system? Its not acceptable. Its not accptable morally or socially. It wouldnt work from a university per spective because when you limit the gene pool you select from you limit the quality of the people attending your university. Fair enough have two tiers but the government shouldnt be seen to endorse a two tier system.

I will also say of all the private school people I have met none are better educated than any of the other people in college. They simply had a belief and the support to get to univsrsity. Ill also say your assuming the private school children do aswell or better in university than others. The private school offers absolutely no advantage once you get to university. they
certainly dont do better than average. So we want our graduates to come from a wide range of backgrounds for academic reasons too.

It would be a bad thing to drop funding because this will lead to increase in spending for the Government, a most likely increase in class sizes for everyone and thus potentially an even further decrease in peoples numeracy and literacy ability.

I dont think it would increase class sizes dramatically. 6% of secondary schools are private. Im fairly sure 6% of people could afford increased fees. They wouldnt all enter the public sector.

It is. If you work hard and are intelligent you will go to college, no matter what school you attended.

If you have the right support be it family support or school support or some sort of other support. I think that people from disadvantaged backgrounds should believe that college is for them. I think part of the problem is that a lot of people see a large percentage from private school go on to further education and the government topping up the parents money doesnt help.

Pedant

What an incredibly socialist OP. Why should the state have a monopoly on education? Private school are going to be ever more relied upon once public education goes down the toilet.

steddyeddy

Pedant wrote: »

What an incredibly socialist OP. Why should the state have a monopoly on education? Private school are going to be ever more relied upon once public education goes down the toilet.

As I said I have no problem with people going to private shcools. I dont think the state should fund it. That would raise the fees and in essence make my view capitalist actually.

Chucky the tree

steddyeddy wrote: »

Its not all public schools that are two years behind. I dont believe that private school children are any less intelligent than the rest of us. As previous posters here said theres nothing to stop a child from a disadvantaged background getting to college. If thats true theres certainly nothing stopping a slightly better off child going to college.

Not ideal for a two tier system? Its not acceptable. Its not accptable morally or socially. It wouldnt work from a university per spective because when you limit the gene pool you select from you limit the quality of the people attending your university. Fair enough have two tiers but the government shouldnt be seen to endorse a two tier system.

I will also say of all the private school people I have met none are better educated than any of the other people in college. They simply had a belief and the support to get to univsrsity. Ill also say your assuming the private school children do aswell or better in university than others. The private school offers absolutely no advantage once you get to university. they
certainly dont do better than average. So we want our graduates to come from a wide range of backgrounds for academic reasons too.

Before you said numeracy and literacy results were down in Public schools but are now saying you have found no difference public or private taught school kids in college and being taught in a public or private school offers no advantage, so which is it? Instead of spending the extra money on educating private school kids publicy that money would be better spent on improving support systems if that's what is holding public school kids back.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I dont think it would increase class sizes dramatically. 6% of secondary schools are private. Im fairly sure 6% of people could afford increased fees. They wouldnt all enter the public sector.

If 2% leave then it will cause a big problem, especially since a lot of private schools are all located in one area. The rest of the schools in that area would have a big problem taking them on.

steddyeddy wrote: »

If you have the right support be it family support or school support or some sort of other support. I think that people from disadvantaged backgrounds should believe that college is for them. I think part of the problem is that a lot of people see a large percentage from private school go on to further education and the government topping up the parents money doesnt help.

So Little Johnny from public school won't do well in school or go to college because a large percentage of private school kids do? Please tell me you don't actually believe that? As you said the right support is huge, if they don't have this it won't make a difference. Little Johnny won't suddenly became a top student if private schools aren't publically funded, however he has a far better chance of becoming a top student if he gets extra help in school and at home.

Pedant

steddyeddy wrote: »

As I said I have no problem with people going to private shcools. I dont think the state should fund it. That would raise the fees and in essence make my view capitalist actually.

A vastly different position, it seems, from your OP. Note: publicly funded "private" school aren't totally private.

Milk & Honey

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Secondly parents might not want to pay for everyone elses improved education, I know I probably won't donate large money to a school when the majority of other parents could be arsed. .

Shows how mean, selfish and grasping the people who go to private schools really are.

Chucky the tree

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Shows how mean, selfish and grasping the people who go to private schools really are.

Yet the people who won't donate any money are lovely, caring and generous? :pac:

secretambition

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Shows how mean, selfish and grasping the people who go to private schools really are.

You'd swear the parents of kids in private schools were all on the dole, the way some people go on about the state sponsoring privilege. They pay tax at the same rate as parents of kids in public schools. The parents of privately schooled children are actually contributing disproportionately to the education of children in public schools because they only take €4000 per child from the public purse, however others take €8000. They pay tax at the same rate and are entitled towards some contribution towards their childrens education in return. It's actually a pretty good deal for the "taxpayer".

Dostoevsky

There appears to be some basic misunderstanding in this thread.

1) Most schools in Ireland are, in fact, privately-owned schools. Therefore, most Irish students have attended "private school". The biggest private landowner of schools in Ireland is the Roman Catholic Church, which in 1997 instructed its senior employees in Ireland, known as bishops, to report allegations of child abuse directly to the Roman Church's own state, the Vatican, before reporting it to the civil authorities of this democratic state, Ireland. And this foreign state is running most schools in Ireland, and being funded by Irish taxpayers in doing so. Incredible.

2) Fee-paying schools, which are clearly what the OP is talking about, in my view do have a right to exist here on condition that they are not subsidised with any money from the Irish state, never mind the €100 million which they are subsidised by every year at present. The current state funding of fee-paying schools is indefensible when that money could be ploughed into developing a state-owned school system. In Britain, for instance, there are plenty of fee-paying schools but the difference is they are entirely funded by fees. This is not the situation in Ireland, where most salaries are funded by the state and these schools also get maintenance and school development grants.

3) All state-funded schools should be state owned. The existing situation of privately-owned schools being state funded is untenable in the long run.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Secondly parents might not want to pay for everyone elses improved education, I know I probably won't donate large money to a school when the majority of other parents could be arsed. .

Shows how mean, selfish and grasping the people who go to private schools really are.

What a ridiculous statement. Going to private school does NOT make you mean, selfish and grasping and also just because a parent could afford fees doesn't mean that if they send their child to a private school that they should pay more there. It's hardly fair for them to pay more if other parents weren't.

SChique00

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It was on frontline awhile ago. A report by PWC found it costs the state €8k for a pupil in public school and €4k in private school. As you said, enrolments would drop considerable so students would need to move into current ones or new ones acquired. I'm really not sure how small a price they would be bought for, a number of them are in very good locations that would probably be quite attractive investments for people. Then you'd now have the Government who would now be charge of the yearly up-keep of them all. Also the state would still be paying their salaries, teachers wouldn't be let go they would simply be re-deployed. To me this seems like what the breakdown of costs for the state would be

Private:
Salaries of teachers

Public
purchase of school
Salaries of teachers
maintenance
regular bills
equipment
support staff

Like I said before, you can take the example of our healthcare system to draw some key parallels in this debate.

Some may say the healthcare and education systems in this country are incompatible, but for the purpose of this argument they most certainly correlate. The state pays for hospitals, nurses, equipment and medicine for all invalids in this country. If we were to talk about private healthcare, do you believe that those who pay for healthcare should foot the bill for new "private" hospitals, and equipment, and nursing? There is no substantial difference between private and public healthcare, except that if you pay VHI, you will have (or at least, you're entitled to) a shorter waiting time.

By the same token, there are no substantial differences between fee-paying schools and state schools, apart from (slightly) smaller class ratios (which parallels with shorter waiting times in hospitals) and the much talked about "elitism" they are purported to reinforce. So why shouldn't the state fund their teaching staff? They don't pay for the cleaners or the caretakers, and every school, be it public or private, sing from the same hymn-sheet in terms of curriculum, so why shouldn't the government fund the school for their (the government's) own employees to work in the school and teach? Are you suggesting that fee-paying schools should work out a new different curriculum and employ "private" teachers to put it into practice?

uriah

Does the state pay the staff of private hospitals? No.

If people want to establish private schools, no problem
If parents want their children to attend those private schools, no problem.

But not one cent of public money should go to fund any aspect of private schools.

steddyeddy

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Before you said numeracy and literacy results were down in Public schools but are now saying you have found no difference public or private taught school kids in college and being taught in a public or private school offers no advantage, so which is it? Instead of spending the extra money on educating private school kids publicy that money would be better spent on improving support systems if that's what is holding public school kids back.

No the situation I was describing is that private school rates better than public school in terms of literacy and numeracy. When said private school kids go to college on a level playing field there is zero advantage at least in terms of the sciences. Maybe in terms of business contacts gained there is an advantage for someone taking economics or finance. All some private schools do is confer an enviroment conducive to going to college, ie smaller class sizes and supportive enviroment.

The other problem I have with the current progression towards a two tier system being government funded is that less than ten percent of people avail of something that everyones tax pays for. Everyone in the country pays tax towards state funding of private schools and only a very small percentage can avail of it.

If 2% leave then it will cause a big problem, especially since a lot of private schools are all located in one area. The rest of the schools in that area would have a big problem taking them on.

If 2% of the six per cent of private school goers leave it will be a big problem? that is 0.0012 of the general population? Or if you meant 2% of the general population leave private shcool it will be a big problem I dont find it credible that 6% of the population wont and cant afford private school.



[/QUOTE]So Little Johnny from public school won't do well in school or go to college because a large percentage of private school kids do? Please tell me you don't actually believe that? As you said the right support is huge, if they don't have this it won't make a difference. Little Johnny won't suddenly became a top student if private schools aren't publically funded, however he has a far better chance of becoming a top student if he gets extra help in school and at home.[/QUOTE]

Do I think or believe that a situation where those who go to private school are more likely to go to college is going to affect the mindset of those who cant afford to go to college? Yes I do. The fact is some people in this country quite wrongly see college education as the right of the what they view as "elite" where as to my mind its the only people who have a right to college are the intelligent and hard working.

steddyeddy

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

What a ridiculous statement. Going to private school does NOT make you mean, selfish and grasping and also just because a parent could afford fees doesn't mean that if they send their child to a private school that they should pay more there. It's hardly fair for them to pay more if other parents weren't.

Actaully the state funding that goes to public schools is funded by one hundred per cent of taxpayers for a service less than ten percent of the population avail of. So of course parents should pay more for private school. The general public shouldnt have to pay for their desire for something extra.

secretambition

If people seriously want no funding for private schools, then some element of the school fees should be written off against tax for parents in acknowledgement of the fact that they are unburdening the state system. Otherwise a parent of a child in a private school is paying a huge amount for their childs education plus a contribution towards some other kid they've never met, when said childs parent is contributing nothing to theirs.

steddyeddy

SChique00 wrote: »

Like I said before, you can take the example of our healthcare system to draw some key parallels in this debate.

Some may say the healthcare and education systems in this country are incompatible, but for the purpose of this argument they most certainly correlate. The state pays for hospitals, nurses, equipment and medicine for all invalids in this country. If we were to talk about private healthcare, do you believe that those who pay for healthcare should foot the bill for new "private" hospitals, and equipment, and nursing? There is no substantial difference between private and public healthcare, except that if you pay VHI, you will have (or at least, you're entitled to) a shorter waiting time.

By the same token, there are no substantial differences between fee-paying schools and state schools, apart from (slightly) smaller class ratios (which parallels with shorter waiting times in hospitals) and the much talked about "elitism" they are purported to reinforce. So why shouldn't the state fund their teaching staff? They don't pay for the cleaners or the caretakers, and every school, be it public or private, sing from the same hymn-sheet in terms of curriculum, so why shouldn't the government fund the school for their (the government's) own employees to work in the school and teach? Are you suggesting that fee-paying schools should work out a new different curriculum and employ "private" teachers to put it into practice?

Is a two tier system right or wrong for education? Is it acceptable that all taxpayers pay for state funding of a two teir system despite only a small percentage of the population availing of it?

secretambition

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is a two tier system right or wrong for education? Is it acceptable that all taxpayers pay for state funding of a two teir system despite only a small percentage of the population availing of it?

The fact that only a small percentage avail of it means that it doesn't cost very much relative to the total education bill. It's relatively cheaper as it costs less per child. AGAIN, private school childrens parents pay tax too. They have a right to some contribution towards their childrens education in return.