Do private schools have a place in society?

steddyeddy

HavingCrack wrote: »

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.

2nd level would be very different because it 2nd level that decides wheter a child can go to college or not. Wheter that is because of class size or enstilled belief in his or her self.

mloc

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

So why can they not spend their own money on improving their own children's education in school?

As for 3rd level, they already do pay more - they pay proportionately more tax than lower earners.

steddyeddy

Education is very important in social mobility. It helps people better their lot. It has done for me. I dont know myself from my humble beginnings. I worked extremely hard through lack of teaching support and parental support. Im going to be entering a very lucrative career and I believe every single child can attain this.

Bottom line all children deserve equal education and a child should not be punsihed because of his background, parent or teachers.

steddyeddy

mloc wrote: »

So why can they not spend their own money on improving their own children's education in school?

As for 3rd level, they already do pay more - they pay proportionately more tax than lower earners.

Becuase it creates an uneven playing field. In college everyone has the same lecturer and learning conditions. In funding one child over another you are making it harder for a child to even get to that level by providing better learning space for one child and not another.

mloc

steddyeddy wrote: »

Becuase it creates an uneven playing field. In college everyone has the same lecturer and learning conditions. In funding one child over another you are making it harder for a child to even get to that level by providing better learning space for one child and not another.

Welcome to reality.

Equality does not exist in nature. We can do our best to ensure equality where it matters; between genders, races, sexual orientations etc. Equality, however, does not mean the same thing for every person, all the time.

Where equality becomes dangerous is where it is used as an excuse to apply the lowest common denominator because people feel they are being treated unfairly, or that their sense of entitlement is so bloated that they think they deserve what everyone else has, or has earned.

Some people have more than others; sometimes they earn it themselves, sometimes their parents have earned it. By our very nature we are programmed to give our offspring the best we can, so if we wish to pay more to give them an advantage, we choose to do this. The idea that this should be prohibited is quite simply unnatural. In many cases, the state acts as a surrogate in order to help those whose parents cannot provide the basics through no fault of their own.

Capping the "learning space" at the level of that which is publicly accessible is illogical, damaging to the state and an affront to personal freedom.

Snowie

yeah generally any private school i ever went to didn't have a religion

thaats enough of a good reason fro my kids to be sent to one, i don't want them getting brain rot

steddyeddy

HavingCrack wrote: »

Wow, just wow. If was going for a job as a head school in a university and someone asked me what 'secondary school' I attended alarm bells would start ringing straight away. Surely an acceptable answer would be that what school you attended is utterly irrelevant to the position, particuarly when you've progressed through three levels of education after that.

That professor seems slightly hypocritical as well considering the cost of 3rd level education in the US, surely everyone has to pay for their college education there, including himself.

Hey just to clarify I think I didnt explain that well.The lecturer I was working with was one I was doing a postgrad with over here. Hes Irish but did Indeed do his postgrad in america with a chap called Briton chance who was a famous biochemist. Hey got a scholarship to do so though.

Yeah I used to live in New Jersey for a little while and all the locals wouldn't even have considered sending their children to public schools, it's not like Ireland at all. The gap between private and public is much, much bigger there.

I lived in Idaho and washington for most of the time. Washington having a large gap between public and private.

steddyeddy

mloc wrote: »

Welcome to reality.

Equality does not exist in nature. We can do our best to ensure equality where it matters; between genders, races, sexual orientations etc. Equality, however, does not mean the same thing for every person, all the time.

Where equality becomes dangerous is where it is used as an excuse to apply the lowest common denominator because people feel they are being treated unfairly, or that their sense of entitlement is so bloated that they think they deserve what everyone else has, or has earned.

Some people have more than others; sometimes they earn it themselves, sometimes their parents have earned it. By our very nature we are programmed to give our offspring the best we can, so if we wish to pay more to give them an advantage, we choose to do this. The idea that this should be prohibited is quite simply unnatural. In many cases, the state acts as a surrogate in order to help those whose parents cannot provide the basics through no fault of their own.

Capping the "learning space" at the level of that which is publicly accessible is illogical, damaging to the state and an affront to personal freedom.

I think your acceptance of unequality something thats foreign to me. I take it you have no problem with my professor vetting against those who went to private shcool? I have a problem with it because discrimination is wrong but thats nature hes protecting his interests (hes a patron of disadvantaged students).

Apart from that I know people are born unequal. However I think children should only enter a particular shcool based soley on intelligence. A child who enters a private shcool does not do so because they earned it but that can be changed.

Bringing equality doesnt have to mean the lowest common denominator.

steddyeddy

I also think those who can afford it should pay a lot more in third level fees for thier kids.

Chuck Stone

mloc wrote: »

In many cases, the state acts as a surrogate in order to help those whose parents cannot provide the basics through no fault of their own.

Let's not forget that nanny state does a fine job of protecting the privileges and status of the not so poor.

There is plenty of government regulation of the professional sphere and little in the way of immigration and competition for professional employment (doctors, dentists and the like). The opposite is true for the trades and semi-skilled or factory workers. The state bails out failed banks and property speculators, copper-fastens the pay and privileges of CS/PS workers (some of which are close to the best paid in the world).

Government spending on infrastructure transportation, education, research & development, energy, policing and the courts are more useful the more you have (and the more you have to lose).

I don't think people have a problem with truly private schools per se. The problem people have is that the state subsidises fee-paying schools.

mloc

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think your acceptance of unequality something thats foreign to me. I take it you have no problem with my professor vetting against those who went to private shcool? I have a problem with it because discrimination is wrong but thats nature hes protecting his interests (hes a patron of disadvantaged students).

He makes an irrational choice here - he does not choose his students on their merits and rules out a significant proportion on a whim. This is foolish - the man is only hurting himself and he is not someone I would want for a supervisor. He gains no advantage to picking only those from public schools.

This is different to a private school - they receive extra income and thus benefit from charging fees.

HavingCrack

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't think people have a problem with truly private schools per se. The problem people have is that the state subsidises fee-paying schools.

Yeah, this is the main issue. It's like the carry on of public doctors using public facilities for treating private patients. I have no issue with private health insurance but I have an issue with public monies (in the form of facilities) being used for private purposes.

Superbus

If the state didn't fund fee-paying schools, many of them (some, a minority I expect, obviously being exceptions) would no longer be financially viable due to the resultant rise in fees.

This would cause a huge rise in numbers in the public system, putting an added strain on it; a rise in unemployment among teachers; a general lowering of the standard of education, due to bloated class sizes and a strain on school resources; and a huge increase on the amount paid per student by the taxpayer, as nothing would be subsidised by the students' parents themselves.

So on that financial level right now I see no reasonable argument against private schools being supplemented by government funding.

I already addressed the issue of perpetuating a class divide earlier in the thread. It's also a dead-end of an argument.

mloc

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't think people have a problem with truly private schools per se. The problem people have is that the state subsidises fee-paying schools.

By the same logic, those who attend are doubly taxed - they pay the same (usually more in absolute terms) tax as those attending public schools and additionally pay significant fees.

Eathrin

Novella wrote: »

Seriously?

I went to a private school and if you believe for a second that I feel I can 'stroll through life on Daddy's money' then you are deluded. That is such a sweeping generalisation, it's actually ridiculous.

I don't believe I got a better education. I believe I went to a school that was highly Leaving Cert and points orientated, with no time for P.E., religion, extra-curricular activities etc. I don't think that's better, it just suited me. I wanted to focus solely on exams, had no interest in sports. That's all.

I have complete respect for public school education. My brother went to a public school and did just as well as I did, in fact some might say better, as I went on to drop out of college and he didn't. However, he loved sports - captained both the schools hurling and football teams and for that reason, he would've hated the school I went to.

Going to a private school is usually a privilege, but only if you have the right attitude towards it.

It has nothing to do with thinking private education is better for me, just sometimes different schools offer things that suit some more than others.

Reading that again, I may have over-generalised. I can only speak from experience and perhaps there's a certain bitterness coming through here that I don't intend.

I know people who were sent to private schools, the superior subject choice and range of facilities annoys me but sure that's what you pay for. I can't complain about that. Shocking to me as I found out the number of people who took up smoking and drinking and even drug use at a very young age in this particular private school was far higher than my own public school. I know one particular very privileged person who last year failed to sit the leaving cert due to drug abuse. Take from that what you will I'm just putting that out there. In that respect I would certainly not send my children when I am a parent to just any private school. However I'm sure that there are just as many private schools that are run to an excellent standard and ensure students conduct themselves properly.

I don't think I'd be well suited to a purely academic school. Despite academia being one of my strong points I believe in a full and rounded education and that involves sport and extra curricular activities too. I'm know that many well renowned private schools excel in these.

Chuck Stone

mloc wrote: »

By the same logic, those who attend are doubly taxed - they pay the same (usually more in absolute terms) tax as those attending public schools and additionally pay significant fees.

If you're talking about income tax alone then that may be true. There is a skewed perception that the rich pay more taxes and this is achieved by focussing on income tax alone. Focussing on income tax alone is a letter-box view of taxation.

People pay all sorts of taxes, levies and flat rate fees. Proportionately the tax burden rests on middle and lower income earners.

rab!dmonkey

HavingCrack wrote: »

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.

Not true. There is a lot less social mobility in the US than comparable nations.

Ectoplasm

steddyeddy wrote: »

. 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.

The idea of changing the expectations of those from disadvantaged areas is a good one but how does the removal of private schools facilitate this? Genuine question.

I myself did go to private school and that decision was not made lightly. All of my older brothers had gone to a public Christian Brothers school, but given that it was a boys school this wasn't an option for me.

The choices for me were a mixed community school, a religious girls school or a private school. At the time both of the public schools sent home letters after Junior Cert. to enquire whether pupils would be returning to do the Leaving Cert. - and on average, the numbers who did return were only 2/3 of those that had completed the first three years. That, for my folks, wasn't acceptable. They just didn't want to send me to a school where it was considered pretty normal to leave school without even a Leaving Cert.

So yes, expectations play an enormous role, but surely the better plan is to change the expectations of those in disadvantaged areas rather than remove the choices of other parents?

byhookorbycrook

Meow_Meow wrote: »

My mom's friend sends her children to Gaelscoileanna so that they don't have to 'sit in a class with blacks and Poles' ....

would highly offend her 5 year old's sensibilities, I'm sure...

I teach in a Gaelscoil, we have both.Your mother's friend sounds like a right twit.

Richard

ted1 wrote: »

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

Those who can't teach, post comments like that!

steddyeddy

EMF2010 wrote: »

The idea of changing the expectations of those from disadvantaged areas is a good one but how does the removal of
private schools facilitate this? Genuine question.

To clarify I dont want to remove private schools from existence. I dont think some of them have a place in society however. Places like gonzaga are driving unequality in society. First of all I would reduce any state funding to private schools to zero. If people want to pay for private schools they should pay through the nose. Those who can should also pay more fees for third level education aswell.

I myself did go to private school and that decision was not made lightly. All of my older brothers had gone to a public Christian Brothers school, but given that it was a boys school this wasn't an option for me.

The choices for me were a mixed community school, a religious girls school or a private school. At the time both of the public schools sent home letters after Junior Cert. to enquire whether pupils would be returning to do the Leaving Cert. - and on average, the numbers who did return were only 2/3 of those that had completed the first three years. That, for my folks, wasn't acceptable. They just didn't want to send me to a school where it was considered pretty normal to leave school without even a Leaving Cert.

It isnt acceptable to a lot of parents but a lot of parents havent got the money to send the kids to a provate school. I also empathise with your experience with school. I dont know about yours but a lot of my teachers just didnt care. We werent going anywhere In their eyes. There are teachers like that who are teaching kids not to expect college.

So yes, expectations play an enormous role, but surely the better plan is to change the expectations of those in disadvantaged areas rather than remove the choices of other parents?

Well in part the amount of kids who go to college from affluent areas or private schools paints the wrong message that only these sort of people belong in college. My lecturer is a patron of people from disadvantaged areas to the point of excluding those from private school from academic positions. That in my opinion is the wrong way to do things.

The other thing we should do is educate people from disadvantaged backgrounds that private schoolers are automatically more intelligent or better students. I supervise undergraduates and the I can say with certainty that private school goes are not better students in university. They simply had the confidence to get to university.

A big percentage of the science lecturers come from ordinary backgrounds and didnt attend private school. There is nothing to stop students today doing the same. Finally Ill say that if private shcools are funded to any extent by taxpayers then they need to increase scholarships.

steddyeddy

mloc wrote: »

He makes an irrational choice here - he does not choose his students on their merits and rules out a significant proportion on a whim. This is foolish - the man is only hurting himself and he is not someone I would want for a supervisor. He gains no advantage to picking only those from public schools.

This is different to a private school - they receive extra income and thus benefit from charging fees.

He doesnt in his mind. He sees that people from public school worked harder to get to the posistion where they are applying for an academic job so he figures theyll work hard in the job. Hes done well for himself so far so hes not really hurting himself.

steddyeddy

Again private schools need to admit more people from a disadvantaged background regardless of money. My points below still stand.

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

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

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?

Let some be I should have structured my original post better. As some of the private schools are they have no place in society.

rab!dmonkey

steddyeddy wrote: »

To clarify I dont want to remove private schools from existence. I dont think some of them have a place in society however. Places like gonzaga are driving unequality in society. First of all I would reduce any state funding to private schools to zero. If people want to pay for private schools they should pay through the nose. Those who can should also pay more fees for third level education aswell.

*Snip*

A big percentage of the science lecturers come from ordinary backgrounds and didnt attend private school. There is nothing to stop students today doing the same. Finally Ill say that if private shcools are funded to any extent by taxpayers then they need to increase scholarships.

There's an assumption that's implied here: that if the government stopped funding private schools, the parents would shrug their shoulders and stump up the difference. That's just silly. What would you'd actually end up with would be the vast majority of parents having to send their children to public schools and causing more over-crowding and resource stretching there.

As it stands anyone can go to a public school and recieve the same education - that's the kind of equality it's the government's job to provide - and parents of even a relatively modest income can choose to send their children to a school with a stated ethos that they feel would benefit their child. If those children were to go to a public school they'd be taught by teachers on the public payroll, just as they are in the private school. The only difference is that the the parents pay for the cost of running the buildings and acquiring equipment. It perplexes me that people have a problem with parents choosing to directly fund the school their child attends, lessening the burden on the general public.

mloc

After considerable thought, this just strikes me as another entitlement-driven notion that if everyone can't have something, no-one can have it.

Not everyone has the same income, that's life. For some people, it's going to be a lot harder; again, that's life. This isn't a communist country - although our ridiculous culture of entitlement (at all levels) might erode the ideal that if you work hard you get rewarded, as a democratic country with a private market, that's life.

I'm sorry some people don't like their perception of private school culture, but unless you're paying the fees and actually attending yourself, then you're not paying for the product and your opinion doesn't hold much weight.

I agree that government funding of private schools is an important issue, but seeing as the parents of those children are already paying, on average, significantly more to the education system than those attending public schools, on top of rab!dmonkey's points regarding overloading of the public system upon failure of the private system, I don't really think that cutting funding is the answer.

To me, it's like telling parents "you earn more money than me, and you pay fees and more taxes than me, but I don't like your schools because I don't earn enough to send my children to them. Even though I'm contributing far less to the education system, I don't want your tax money going to your kids education any more, but I want you to continue paying for my kid's education"

Screw everything about that "ideology".

Scanlas The 2nd

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

All children have the right to education in a public school, if they put in the hard work they'll do well. Nothing is stopping them. If another kids parents wants to pay for private school that's their business.

I really despise your attitude, who cares if other people have more money. Get over it. Do you realise how lucky we are to be living in a first world country. The majority of children in Ireland have nothing stopping them being financially successfully if they want it bad enough, and if some parents want to help out their kids with their hard earned money then good luck to them, that's their business. No one is entitled to private school so what's the problem, no kid can therefore be loosing out.

Squiggle

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:

Dravokivich wrote: »

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.

The simple point is this, private education is not exclusive to the wealthy although many would like to think that it is. There are plenty of people out there who make sacrifices to educate their children privately. I used the cost of smoking just to illustrate the point. Nothing annoys me more than the begrudging gobshíte who castigates someone for spending 5 or 6k a year on private education when he spends 10k a year on cigarettes / weekends in the pub.

Randy Anders

It all depends on what the public school options are to be honest

I went to a public school that had a decent reputation for getting good results in the junior/leaving. Myself and most of the year went on to attend third level/get a trade. According to our principal, the average leaving cert result was 400 points, which I'd imagine is seriously high for a public school

There are however public schools out there, especially in underprivileged areas, that have bad track records when it comes to exam results. I have plenty of friends who went to community schools and they didn't do as well as they could have because the knuckleheads in their classes were allowed drag down the rest of the pupils by messing and generally being disruptive

When I have kids, I'll send them to a public school but not after doing serious research into the what the school is like and the results they are producing

blackwhite

steddyeddy wrote: »

I dont read past insults thanks.

Don't read them, but happy to post sweeping insulting generalisations?