Insane private school fees.

ProfessorPlum

steddyeddy wrote: »

It does indeed. So you'll agree that the closer we get to standardisation the more accurate the result?

I think you might have better luck campaigning to make the exam more standardised to be honest.

If a parent wants to pay extra for their child's education fair play to them. Weather that be private school, drama, music, art or whatever extra curricular lessons they like. A good education is not just about academia.

evolving_doors

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think you might have better luck campaigning to make the exam more standardised to be honest.

If a parent wants to pay extra for their child's education fair play to them. Weather that be private school, drama, music, art or whatever extra curricular lessons they like. A good education is not just about academia.

Just on the last point that's definitely true, but then again shouldn;t it be incumbent on educationalists to provide an education that should reflect an ideal society.. i.e. everyone having a fair crack. My own education was pretty mixed as it was a rural school.. in my class were children of farmers/unemployed/tradesmen/teachers/accountants/doctors/engineers etc...

You won;t get that same social mix in a fee charging school!!

ProfessorPlum

Armelodie wrote: »

Just on the last point that's definitely true, but then again shouldn;t it be incumbent on educationalists to provide an education that should reflect an ideal society.. i.e. everyone having a fair crack. My own education was pretty mixed as it was a rural school.. in my class were children of farmers/unemployed/tradesmen/teachers/accountants/doctors/engineers etc...

You won;t get that same social mix in a fee charging school!!

Rural schools are probably the exception though. If you send your child to a state school in an urban disadvantaged area, you will likely get a fairly homogenous group. In most urban areas your likely to have kids of similar backgrounds attending the same school, so you won't get that advantage.

animaal

steddyeddy wrote: »

The income of your parents shouldn't be allowed to give you an academic advantage over others.

I suppose maybe it's only natural in bad economic times, but there seems to be a popular belief in this country that if somebody is financially successful, they should be taxed to high heaven. If (s)he has anything left after that, it's fine; we live in a modern free western society. But they can only spend it on faberge eggs. Nothing truly beneficial (i.e. education, healthcare etc).

I'm not sure that it's good for the country in the long run.

jobbridge4life

animaal wrote: »

I suppose maybe it's only natural in bad economic times, but there seems to be a popular belief in this country that if somebody is financially successful, they should be taxed to high heaven.

Indeed there is, it is called a progressive tax system and it is right and proper. It is acknowledgement that those who have most benefited from and enjoy the greatest advantage in our society ought to contribute proportionally more.

animaal wrote: »

If (s)he has anything left after that, it's fine; we live in a modern free western society. But they can only spend it on faberge eggs. Nothing truly beneficial (i.e. education, healthcare etc).

I don't accept that for one minute. Calls for the prohibition of private education are exceedingly rare. In relation to healthcare the reasons for calling for a one tier system are concerned with equity and equality of access to medical services, hardly rich-hating.

animaal wrote: »

I'm not sure that it's good for the country in the long run.

Well the Nordic nations seem to be pretty okay even with their socialist policies.

steddyeddy

Hey guys I apologise I'm not ignoring your points just haven't had time to reply to them yet. I'll get to them tomorrow hopefully.

steddyeddy

animaal wrote: »

I suppose maybe it's only natural in bad economic times, but there seems to be a popular belief in this country that if somebody is financially successful, they should be taxed to high heaven. If (s)he has anything left after that, it's fine; we live in a modern free western society. But they can only spend it on faberge eggs. Nothing truly beneficial (i.e. education, healthcare etc).

I'm not sure that it's good for the country in the long run.

Oh no I don't mind how much people spend on their own healthcare or education. I don't believe that unearned wealth (the family you are born into) should be allowed to introduce another variable into a standardised exam. It sort of defeats the purpose. I would disagree it's economically beneficial as well. Optimising the output of graduates (i.e making sure only the best get to college) is only good for the economy.

shruikan2553

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Indeed there is, it is called a progressive tax system and it is right and proper. It is acknowledgement that those who have most benefited from and enjoy the greatest advantage in our society ought to contribute proportionally more.

Or you know, they might have done more work to get where they were, society isn't doing much studying for my exams that mean the difference between getting a job with good prospects or not.

steddyeddy

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think you might have better luck campaigning to make the exam more standardised to be honest.

If a parent wants to pay extra for their child's education fair play to them. Weather that be private school, drama, music, art or whatever extra curricular lessons they like. A good education is not just about academia.

Sorry but having worked in academia and educated sub par students from top schools (by top I mean they are good at helping people pass tests) I would disagree with you. The amount of students some schools send into science (Can't speak for other disciplines so I won't) is worrying. I'm not even objecting on a fairness or moral standpoint I just think the standardisation of the education process will allow the most gifted into college.

I would love to find common ground with you but my sense of logic cannot agree that large variations in education will not distort a standardised test. I don't think that the act of distorting such a test is "a fair play scenario". I will concede that my interest is strictly in the interest in the quality of scientists we produce and maybe when I have kids I will think differently.

steddyeddy

In fairness guys the tax system has little to do with a debate as to whether some children should receive educational advantage over others.

steddyeddy

Would people here be against standardised schools in theory? Would you personally feel your child would not perform as well on an even ground?

steddyeddy

Armelodie wrote: »

The only 'scientific' standardisation we can get is if all schools in Ireland are compelled to instigate

Gender Quotas
SEN quotas
Socio Economic background quotas
Traveller quotas
Ethnicity quotas
Geographical quotas
A ban on students getting grinds/revision courses
A shut down of grind schools/fee charging schools

... and all schools would have to divest to 'state run' as opposed to the voluntary system.

And all the constitutional changes that would be undertaken to facilitate this.

Then maybe we could talk about leveling the playing field.
Don't get me wrong though, it's a Utopia to aspire to but I don't see any 'real' desire for this to happen in the political sector.

As far as Ruairi Quinn tackling the enrolement procedures... I'll see it when I believe it .. from what I gathered from the Independant Article on Cherry Picking he's against everything (which is all noble in a champagne socialist kind of Ruairi way) but the only tangible mention of an alternative seems to be... enrollment by lottery. It seems to be still in operation in Limerick but it takes siblings and catchment area etc. into account so not a 'true' lottery in the sense.

As things stand in education, we are still waiting to hear the results from the legendary questionnaires on school uniforms handed out to parents!!. Does Jan O' Sullivan have the inclination to tackle the other stuff above? At the mo. it's just going to be about money/budgets and fighting with the teaching unions over student assessment in the new JC. All the rest is sabre-rattling.

The whole fee charging schools debate has ground to a halt in Ireland. The dept knows it can't afford any more fee charging schools 'going public'. To say that tax payers are subsidising it is ludicrous. In our school if it went public I'd be delighted.... I'd be moved onto dept. pay and pension, increment, class sizes would get smaller, resources for SEN would at least double.

Sorry but what on earth have gender, ethnicity or socio economic background got to do with academic ability? We haven't got a decent correlation of academic ability and socio economic class because those born to parents of money often receive better education so we don't know if the economic class made the difference or the education.

steddyeddy

OK guys serious question if we standardised schools tomorrow (if only in terms of teacher student ratio) and inability to collect fees how would education suffer? Maybe it would and I'm not seeing it but sure fill me in.

jobbridge4life

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Or you know, they might have done more work to get where they were, society isn't doing much studying for my exams that mean the difference between getting a job with good prospects or not.

And they worked in a bubble totally removed from society? Where is it? I'd like to go there. Sigh and a half.

Society has provided you with the opportunity to study, society has provided the economic conditions that allow you to convert your educational effort into paid employment and so on and so forth.

There are countless individuals who have 'done more work' and ended up nowhere.

VinLieger

steddyeddy wrote: »

OK guys serious question if we standardised schools tomorrow (if only in terms of teacher student ratio) and inability to collect fees how would education suffer? Maybe it would and I'm not seeing it but sure fill me in.

The problem with your proposals is you are focused with standardising everything across the board and not allowing parents use money to influence their childs education which is noble but inherrently flawed.

What If they sent their child to this socialised school and then afterwards employed a private tutor to give their child further instruction after school, that would give them an advantage over their peers so do you propose making this illegal?

Also what if a parent chooses to in their own time teach the child more than the parents of the other children do as they might have more time due to their spouse being wealthy enough to support them both, would you also call for this to be disallowed? How would you police such a system?

ProfessorPlum

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think you might have better luck campaigning to make the exam more standardised to be honest.

If a parent wants to pay extra for their child's education fair play to them. Weather that be private school, drama, music, art or whatever extra curricular lessons they like. A good education is not just about academia.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry but having worked in academia and educated sub par students from top schools (by top I mean they are good at helping people pass tests) I would disagree with you. The amount of students some schools send into science (Can't speak for other disciplines so I won't) is worrying. I'm not even objecting on a fairness or moral standpoint I just think the standardisation of the education process will allow the most gifted into college.

I would love to find common ground with you but my sense of logic cannot agree that large variations in education will not distort a standardised test. I don't think that the act of distorting such a test is "a fair play scenario". I will concede that my interest is strictly in the interest in the quality of scientists we produce and maybe when I have kids I will think differently.

What part are you disagreeing with? That parents should not be able to pay for extracurricular activities for their child, that they can't supplement their child's formal education at home, that a good education is not just about academia?

Do you want to 'dumb down' education to the lowest level achievable by the state? It seems that's the only way you would achieve your 'standardisation'.

evolving_doors

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry but what on earth have gender, ethnicity or socio economic background got to do with academic ability? We haven't got a decent correlation of academic ability and socio economic class because those born to parents of money often receive better education so we don't know if the economic class made the difference or the education.

not academic ability,,, but academic oppertunity... if you want to standardise the outcome you have to standardise the oppertunity to participate.

steddyeddy

Armelodie wrote: »

not academic ability,,, but academic oppertunity... if you want to standardise the outcome you have to standardise the oppertunity to participate.

If a gender, race or ethnicity are being excluded from education is it not desirable to include them?

evolving_doors

steddyeddy wrote: »

If a gender, race or ethnicity are being excluded from education is it not desirable to include them?

Ah yes of course.. the whole thrust of the 'standardisation' argument and being scientific and all that imo is moot. The only way you could do this scientifically was to have quotas of the various 'groups' I mentioned above (positive discrimination) so that everyone was represented 'fairly' in each and every school.

ktc99

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

That's how much they should cost here too, if it wasn't for the state subsidised elitism. Private schools should be entirely self-funded.

You have got it pretty wrong there. Private schools actually subsidise the state. It costs the government less per year for the education of a student in private education than it does for a student in public education. How parents decide to spend their money is up to them. The fees paid goes towards things like better facilities and equipment in the schools. And as well parents of privately educated students still pay the same taxes that pay for the education system that parents of publicly educated students do. Typical begrudgery is all your post was without knowing any facts.

steddyeddy

Armelodie wrote: »

Ah yes of course.. the whole thrust of the 'standardisation' argument and being scientific and all that imo is moot. The only way you could do this scientifically was to have quotas of the various 'groups' I mentioned above (positive discrimination) so that everyone was represented 'fairly' in each and every school.

Quotas are not how the scientific method works.

steddyeddy

ktc99 wrote: »

You have got it pretty wrong there. Private schools actually subsidise the state. It costs the government less per year for the education of a student in private education than it does for a student in public education. How parents decide to spend their money is up to them. The fees paid goes towards things like better facilities and equipment in the schools. And as well parents of privately educated students still pay the same taxes that pay for the education system that parents of publicly educated students do. Typical begrudgery is all your post was without knowing any facts.

So what does one student do to earn a a better chance at education over another?

steddyeddy

Number one question at this time is if the kids would have succeeded independent of school why have private schools? I understand private schools based on necessity to avoid a particular religion.

steddyeddy

People are constantly referring to standardisation as a socialist idea. I'm a capitalist to the bone. I worked hard, it was recognised and I was rewarded. Right now we have schools with lower teacher pupil ratios that determine entry not based on hard work rather circumstances of birth. I see mature students who lost out on points because some crappy school they went to. They come to college eventually and do fantastically. I see students from Glenball Abbey (let's call it that) get into college and don't give a crap. This isn't a system which rewards hard work over all. It's being handed unearned advantage.

eyescreamcone

VinLieger wrote: »

Well in most cases someone who is not gifted enough in a field like medicine will be weeded out through the harsh college courses.

Anybody who got more than 500 points in the LC, with a mixture of scientific subjects thrown in, is more than suitable for medicine

I think in fact our system is inherently flawed in the way that people who get 600 points automatically go for medicine as that's what people who get 600 points do, but they may not necessarily be suited to be doctors at all

Someone with 600 points has a lot more career choices than those with lower points totals. Many choose medicine for prestige, perceived high salaries, access to cute nurses etc.

Some of these reasons may not be what YOU think are the right reasons. However the 600 pointer has earned the right to make their choice.

Medical careers can be very varied these days, therefore to say that someone is not suited to being a doctor because of a perceived "character flaw" at 17 or 18 years of age is over the top in my opinion.

Let the points market decide who is best suited. This system has worked well up to now and it's only people with lower points cry foul.

.

steddyeddy

Well Vin is right points don't work. With the increase in points for science (500 plus) have we produced better scientists? Have test scores in science increased? It's too early to talk about the former point but performances in science haven't increased with entry points.

eyescreamcone

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well Vin is right points don't work. With the increase in points for science (500 plus) have we produced better scientists? Have test scores in science increased? It's too early to talk about the former point but performances in science hasn't increased with entry points.

Of course points work
Points are there to determine who gets an entry ticket to a course.

If Science is now 500 plus then this means that there is a large demand for Science from those that achieve high points. That is all. What happens after entry is irrelevant to points needed for entry.

shruikan2553

jobbridge4life wrote: »

And they worked in a bubble totally removed from society? Where is it? I'd like to go there. Sigh and a half.

Society has provided you with the opportunity to study, society has provided the economic conditions that allow you to convert your educational effort into paid employment and so on and so forth.

There are countless individuals who have 'done more work' and ended up nowhere.

Can you put me down for an order of a first class honours degree, good project and some interview skills please? Or can I preorder and collect them from the society shop later?

eyescreamcone

In spite of what the league tables say I don't believe that Irish fee paying schools are much better than the free schools academically.

Fee paying schools will attract children from families who want their children to do well academically and will encourage them to perform. These parents will also pay for grinds and take extra interest in their children's performance. Also, these parents will probably have done well academically themselves and will have experience and brains to pass on to their children.
The advantage is not given to the children by the school - it's given to them by the parents.

Fee paying schools ARE much better than free schools in extra curricular work though.
Better coaching and facilities make a huge difference.
At the 2012 Olympics 65% of Team GBs medals came from fee paying schools.
Also check out where the Irish Rugby team came from.

The quality of work done outside the classroom is worth paying for on its own.

evolving_doors

steddyeddy wrote: »

Quotas are not how the scientific method works.

Well if we're talking about every student having equal access then we need everybody equally represented in every school. Otherwise you may as well say that what we have now is 'standardised'.... so no problem with measuring things as they are now. ergo the whole system IS fair... (but its not obviously)