Do private schools have a place in society?

HavingCrack

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thats another issue I have with it. Ireland has massive problems with cronyisim and percieved elitisim. America where I spent a good chunk of life sees the elite as those who worked their way up from nothing. Not those who are rewarded for luck.

Not always like that in the States either. There's definately elites there even if it's more based on money than social class. Have a look at families like the Bushes or the Kennedys-eg all attended Yale or Harvard etc. In the US the old boy network is much more focused on the university you attended than your school for obvious reasons.

Admitedly for every Bush/Kennedy there's a Clinton/Obama/Carter/Ford so social mobility is a lot more prevalent in the US then here. However there definately is still an elite there, mostly centred around the 'old money' of New England and the Ivy League.

iguana

RoverJames wrote: »

That sounds nice in fairness
How much is it?

About 3 grand a year, with a reduction for siblings. They are also quite reasonable if the family of an existing pupil runs into financial trouble. It's definitely a stretch financially, especially as we'd ideally like 3 children. But we would like to live quite local to the school to avoid a commute and it's not the most expensive part of Dublin. So we will buy a cheaper house and the money we will save on a mortgage by not living somewhere like Templeogue/Rathfarnham should be enough to cover school costs.

We aren't poor by any means (I grew up poor, so know how well off we are compared to my parents) but we aren't rich either. In fact my husband was critically ill for the first two of the last three years, so our savings have taken a battering. But we'd rather a small house somewhere unremarkable if it allows our children the education that I hope will suit them, and if they are anything like me, my family or my husband (which is reasonably likely) Montessori will suit them enormously.

steddyeddy

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Pretty much, yes. Nearly all private schools have implemented scholarship schemes at this stage which take all children into account irrespective of background.

About 10% of scholarships in some schools. Not all schools do the rest of the time they discriminate against those born into poverty.

Gordon Gecko

I went to a private school and got pretty average points. I've since repeated and am doing the course with the highest points requirement in the country. The majority of people on my course went to public schools.

Ergo I don't believe private schools give any kind of substantial advantage to students.

The hard working still get where they want to go irrespective of where they're schooled. So why not let private schools be?

Squiggle

steddyeddy wrote: »

It gives an unfair advantage to people who usually already are lucky enough to not be born into poverty. I dont get why one persons education should be more important than anothers.

Rich Couple A spend €6500 a year on tuition fees for their kid.

Poor Couple B spend €6935 on their 2 x 20 a day smoking habit. :rolleyes:

Chuck Stone

ted1 wrote: »

Only the guy who sends his kid to private school is probably paying the taxes to also send a kid to public school.

Bollocks.

Dravokivich

Squiggle wrote: »

Rich Couple A spend €6500 a year on tuition fees for their kid.

Poor Couple B spend €6935 on their 2 x 20 a day smoking habit. :rolleyes:

What kind of arguement is that? Not all poor people smoke. Neither of my folks smoked and that didn't make a blind bit of difference to our social standing.

PrincessLola

I've been to both public and private schools.

The public school was in a posh area and full of rich kids, I was the only person in my class who didn't have a holiday home or go skiing every winter.

The private school was actually a bit more normal believe it or not.

steddyeddy

Squiggle wrote: »

Rich Couple A spend €6500 a year on tuition fees for their kid.

Poor Couple B spend €6935 on their 2 x 20 a day smoking habit. :rolleyes:

Daddy says if poor people only gave up heroin they could afford that second apartment in the south of France :rolleyes:

UrbanSea

To be honest I hate to see this debate. I have no issue with the debate itself, it's the people partaking in the debate.

Had a read of the thread, and it is always evident in these matters that people do look through tinted frames when depending his/ her opinion on public v private schools based on their own personal experiences.

I went to a public school for primary and up until my last two years of secondary school. I did well in the Junior Cert, had a great time in public school with some great teachers and made some great friends, who I still see nearly every day.

The reason I moved isn't because my family is wealthy or up themselves (Mum didn't do her leaving cert, dad is not an academic person), so to suggest that all students that attend private schools is purely wrong. I went to the school thinking I was actually going to hate every person there. I, like many of the people here, thought that it was going to be full of pricks whose parents were of the highest social class, which would rub off on their children.

How wrong I was. I met some of the most genuinely nice people there. However, my suspicions were certainly confirmed by certain students, though I'd imagine this number would be less than 1 in 10. The main reason I went there was purely down to my own laziness, not my old school's. I did fairly well in my Junior Cert, but I could have done so much better had I put my head down. The difference I found in the public and private school was the sheer mentality of the studying environment. The private school had no pe, religion, free classes or any sports. Yes it was frustrating, but I knew myself it was what I had to do.

I'm saying this in an unbiased way because I will be sending my kids should I have any to a public school. You learn social graces there and I had the time of my life. The particular school I went to only had a 5th and 6th year, so some students were already coming from a boarding school. Some of their social capabilities were different. Not to say they couldn't hold a conversation or anything, but they had such sheltered lives. Some would nearly be afraid to walk into the town for fear of being robbed or assaulted or such fantastical scenarios. That's something I definitely would discourage about boarding schools, you can't hide from lower social classes for all of your life, hard as you may try.

Some posters defending public schools may argue the type of student that a private school produces and they may well be right, but they cannot argue that private schools consistently churn out the best achieving students statistically at a Leaving Cert level. This is their function, a function that the evidently carry out quite satisfactorily. However, this is not to say that public schools cannot produce some brilliant results and students, which we also see year in year out.

To answer the OP's question, I think there should be a place for private schools, but they do not necessarily produce the best individuals, even if they produce the best results. Also, they are not full of snotty, higher class socialites living off the fortune of their father.

Gordon Gecko

UrbanSea wrote: »

To be honest I hate to see this debate. I have no issue with the debate itself, it's the people partaking in the debate.

Had a read of the thread, and it is always evident in these matters that people do look through tinted frames when depending his/ her opinion on public v private schools based on their own personal experiences.

I went to a public school for primary and up until my last two years of secondary school. I did well in the Junior Cert, had a great time in public school with some great teachers and made some great friends, who I still see nearly every day.

The reason I moved isn't because my family is wealthy or up themselves (Mum didn't do her leaving cert, dad is not an academic person), so to suggest that all students that attend private schools is purely wrong. I went to the school thinking I was actually going to hate every person there. I, like many of the people here, thought that it was going to be full of pricks whose parents were of the highest social class, which would rub off on their children.

How wrong I was. I met some of the most genuinely nice people there. However, my suspicions were certainly confirmed by certain students, though I'd imagine this number would be less than 1 in 10. The main reason I went there was purely down to my own laziness, not my old school's. I did fairly well in my Junior Cert, but I could have done so much better had I put my head down. The difference I found in the public and private school was the sheer mentality of the studying environment. The private school had no pe, religion, free classes or any sports. Yes it was frustrating, but I knew myself it was what I had to do.

I'm saying this in an unbiased way because I will be sending my kids should I have any to a public school. You learn social graces there and I had the time of my life. The particular school I went to only had a 5th and 6th year, so some students were already coming from a boarding school. Some of their social capabilities were different. Not to say they couldn't hold a conversation or anything, but they had such sheltered lives. Some would nearly be afraid to walk into the town for fear of being robbed or assaulted or such fantastical scenarios. That's something I definitely would discourage about boarding schools, you can't hide from lower social classes for all of your life, hard as you may try.

Some posters defending public schools may argue the type of student that a private school produces and they may well be right, but they cannot argue that private schools consistently churn out the best achieving students statistically at a Leaving Cert level. This is their function, a function that the evidently carry out quite satisfactorily. However, this is not to say that public schools cannot produce some brilliant results and students, which we also see year in year out.

To answer the OP's question, I think there should be a place for private schools, but they do not necessarily produce the best individuals, even if they produce the best results. Also, they are not full of snotty, higher class socialites living off the fortune of their father.

In all fairness the school you've referred to isn't the typical "private school" to which this debate refers, but I commend your general point sir.

UrbanSea

Sorry Gordon went on a bit of a ramble :pac:. But I think the same prejudice applies which can be totally untrue.

foxyboxer

If deep pockets were not an issue and you wanted your kid to get the best results possible, wouldn't it make more sense to have a seperate tutor in the subjects as opposed to a private school, whose primary objective is not to 'teach' but, having a knowledge of how the exams are set and marked to outline in a systematic manner on how to answer the questions, considering that the Leaving Cert is designed as such. (?)

gagiteebo

Juat throwing in another viewpoint, that of a teacher who has taught in both a private boarding school and regular public schools.

The attitude that all private school kids are spoiled brats etc is completely false. Some of the nicest, most polite, driven students I have taught were from private schools. Yes there were brats but not nearly as often as you'd like to imagine. I had a fantastic experience at this particular school. The parents were equally as nice and very supportive. Very few of them were fantastically wealthy or anywhere close so that argument really doesn't have much standing in my experience.

In my experience of public schools, again, the majority of students are polite and ambitious but I have found there to be more spoiled brats with a sense of entitlement in these schools. I have also found the parents to be more difficult to deal with for a variety of reasons that I simply did not experience in private schools. This is all based on my personal experience.

If a child is driven and hard working and has support at home and at school then there is nothing he/she can't achieve. I don't believe private schools turn out better educated students who are better equipped for the real world.

mloc

This debate will never get anywhere due to misconceptions and bias on both sides.

I went to both private and public schools, both very different. Each has a number of pros and cons.

I think it is the right of the parent to pay for a private school if they so wish - keep in mind they already pay taxes to fund public schools so the school fees are in addition to funding the public education system. In the cases of those in higher earning brackets, their contribution to the public education system is significant and often above the average contribution of those with children in the public education system.

wintersolstice

steddyeddy wrote: »

I dont think they do. Im not talking about the cost to the system, I think they promote elitisim, cronyisim and a false sense of entitlement in this society. It gives an unfair advantage to people who usually already are lucky enough to not be born into poverty. I dont get why one persons education should be more important than anothers.

if i could afford it,i would send my children to a really good private secondary school as it gives them a great start in life.there is nothing unfair about it,the people who can afford private education have usually worked hard to pay for it.

steddyeddy

wintersolstice wrote: »

if i could afford it,i would send my children to a really good private secondary school as it gives them a great start in life.there is nothing unfair about it,the people who can afford private education have usually worked hard to pay for it.

The children who avail of private education worked hard to pay for it? No they didnt where as some child from a disadvantaged background works equally hard in school yet doesnt have the same opertunities.

coffee_cake

steddyeddy wrote: »

The children who avail of private education worked hard to pay for it? No they didnt where as some child from a disadvantaged background works equally hard in school yet doesnt have the same opertunities.

You know what he meant

HavingCrack

Calling private schools in Ireland "private" is a bit of a falsehood, they're still subsidised by public monies in the form of teachers salaries. The exception are the 'grind schools' (though I find the term quite offensive). In the UK/US private schools are 'truly' private.

'Private' schools in Ireland are really just state schools with extra money thrown on top.

UrbanSea

wintersolstice wrote: »

if i could afford it,i would send my children to a really good private secondary school as it gives them a great start in life.there is nothing unfair about it,the people who can afford private education have usually worked hard to pay for it.

steddyeddy wrote: »

The children who avail of private education worked hard to pay for it? No they didnt where as some child from a disadvantaged background works equally hard in school yet doesnt have the same opertunities.

Eddy even you can't dispute this. This is one of the biased opinions I was referring to.

steddyeddy

bluewolf wrote: »

You know what he meant

Yes I do but it appears you dont know what I meant. He said people work hard to pay for their childrens education, implying that this was somehow fair. The child is the one who is either benifiting from this through no merit of their own. Therefore some children are loosing out through no fault of their own. Children from disadvantaged areas would benifit a lot more from education through social mobility. So it isnt fair in the slightest.

coffee_cake

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes I do but it appears you dont know what I meant. He said people work hard to pay for their childrens education, implying that this was somehow fair. The child is the one who is either benifiting from this through no merit of their own. Therefore some children are loosing out through no fault of their own. Children from disadvantaged areas would benifit a lot more from education through social mobility. So it isnt fair in the slightest.

The children are benefiting from good nutrition or playing on computers as well without paying for any of it, should we take those off them too?

steddyeddy

UrbanSea wrote: »

Eddy even you can't dispute this. This is one of the biased opinions I was referring to.

How is the child of parents who can afford private education more entitled to a decent education than a child who comes from a disadvantaged background? A child who requires help more than most children?

HavingCrack

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes I do but it appears you dont know what I meant. He said people work hard to pay for their childrens education, implying that this was somehow fair. The child is the one who is either benifiting from this through no merit of their own. Therefore some children are loosing out through no fault of their own. Children from disadvantaged areas would benifit a lot more from education through social mobility. So it isnt fair in the slightest.

Not sure about the highlighted part. Free fees at 3rd level hasn't noticeably increased participation from those from 'working' classes who traditionally would not have attended university. I'm not sure why 2nd level would be any different.

UrbanSea

steddyeddy wrote: »

How is the child of parents who can afford private education more entitled to a decent education than a child who comes from a disadvantaged background? A child who requires help more than most children?

The post you quoted never even implied this. He said that parents who send children to private schools have generally worked hard in order to do so. That's indisputable. Why do you have to be so defensive?

steddyeddy

bluewolf wrote: »

The children are benefiting from good nutrition or playing on computers as well without paying for any of it, should we take those off them too?

Education is more fundamental than playing computers. Help is available to provide food to those in poverty. Every child is entitled to equal education regardless of his or her background and I make no apologies for that.

BASHIR

At the end of each, is the same State examinations, the same 600 points possible. Students have got the max in both public and private, it's down to the individual tbh, its's how they apply themselves.

mloc

steddyeddy wrote: »

Education is more fundamental than playing computers. Help is available to provide food to those in poverty. Every child is entitled to equal education regardless of his or her background and I make no apologies for that.

This is nonsense.

If I have money to buy additional books and materials, to spend money on a private tutor or additional classes outside school, should this also be prohibited?

steddyeddy

UrbanSea wrote: »

The post you quoted never even implied this. He said that parents who send children to private schools have generally worked hard in order to do so. That's indisputable. Why do you have to be so defensive?

My post remains the same. The post I refered to was this:

if i could afford it,i would send my children to a really good private secondary school as it gives them a great start in life.there is nothing unfair about it,the people who can afford private education have usually worked hard to pay for it.

Why should the child be punished based on his/her fathers work ethic or luck? This is about the child not the parent. A child who comes from a disadvantaged background has little or no influence on his future. If Im being defensive its because I see people all the time from disadvantaged areas who simply dont believe they can go to college. I want that to change.

Im doing a post grad at the moment and I see so many wonderful kids from poor backgrounds who have been conditioned to think their less than those from more affluent backgrounds. One girl is even getting therapy in the college because she feels less than the others. I dont think we should be sending a message to children saying your daddy didnt work as hard as someone elses or wasnt as lucky as someone elses.

steddyeddy

mloc wrote: »

This is nonsense.

If I have money to buy additional books and materials, to spend money on a private tutor or additional classes outside school, should this also be prohibited?

No but those who can afford such luxeries should pay more in third level fees.