Insane private school fees.

20-10-2014 12:34am

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I think the idea is that the rich kids can no longer buy their way into college so all the poor super smart children can get into medicine now that they are no longer being oppressed.

I applaud the utopian vision of total equality of opportunity, but I don't see how it can ever be a reality. There are too many variables, thats why there are good schools and bad schools within the state system.

shruikan2553 · 20-10-2014 12:37am

Candie wrote: »

I applaud the utopian vision of total equality of opportunity, but I don't see how it can ever be a reality. There are too many variables, thats why there are good schools and bad schools within the state system.

In theory it is good but you have parents, teachers and even the students themselves holdong them back or helping them achieve their potential. None of which can be standardise, plus how many private school students are there each year?

20-10-2014 12:38am

shruikan2553 wrote: »

In theory it is good but you have parents, teachers and even the students themselves holdong them back or helping them achieve their potential. None of which can be standardise, plus how many private school students are there each year?

Enough to p!ss off Eddy!

steddyeddy · 20-10-2014 12:44am

Candie wrote: »

You need to explain your vision of the alternative. How does the playing field get truly levelled?

The enrolment in the public (private) school I went to in Kent was 10% fully funded scholarships and 20% partially funded scholarships. In my university, up to 70% of students are in receipt of some level of financial aid, and 20% pay no tuition. You'd ban these schools instead of recognising the opportunities they afford.

You keep saying truly levelled. I know it can never be truly levelled and I don't want it to be. I want state involvement to be levelled. If we remove fees we take a step towards that. By putting some people in better schools you're making it harder for those at the bottom unless you reserve places for each school type (which wouldn't work either).

steddyeddy · 20-10-2014 12:45am

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I think the idea is that the rich kids can no longer buy their way into college so all the poor super smart children can get into medicine now that they are no longer being oppressed.

Please lose the chip. Candie already said that money buys the best teachers. I simply want all children to have access to the best teachers.

steddyeddy · 20-10-2014 12:47am

Candie wrote: »

Enough to p!ss off Eddy!

You genuinely seem to have a real problem with children from poorer families having access to the same education as those born to better off familes. Every post you make at the suggestion is either "Oh well it can't be done so why try".

20-10-2014 12:49am

steddyeddy wrote: »

You keep saying truly levelled. I know it can never be truly levelled and I don't want it to be. I want state involvement to be levelled. If we remove fees we take a step towards that. By putting some people in better schools you're making it harder for those at the bottom unless you reserve places for each school type (which wouldn't work either).

Removing choices from parents is penalising them. You might not think that matters because the parents can afford the choice to begin with though. Private schools in the UK have no state subsidy, and have no affect on the funds spend on state schooling. I went to boarding school because my parents careers mean they travel a lot, not often to the same places. What would their options have been without boarding school?

I understand you have a problem with private schools, but your attention would be much better directed at underperforming state schools.

shruikan2553 · 20-10-2014 12:50am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Please lose the chip. Candie already said that money buys the best teachers. I simply want all children to have access to the best teachers.

Im not the one with a chip. They never will have the best teachers by definition. Some teachers will be terrible and others brilliant. Always had been and always will. How many teachers are working in private schools compared to the total amount? You must have numbers for the students and teachers as you see it as such a problem.

steddyeddy · 20-10-2014 12:52am

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Im not the one with a chip. They never will have the best teachers by definition. Some teachers will be terrible and others brilliant. Always had been and always will. How many teachers are working in private schools compared to the total amount? You must have numbers for the students and teachers as you see it as such a problem.

Actually they will if schools aren't allowed to collect fees. That simply act will improve the literacy gap.

shruikan2553 · 20-10-2014 12:54am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually they will if schools aren't allowed to collect fees. That simply act will improve the literacy gap.

How many teachers will be scattered around the country if the private schools closed down? What is stopping them from just selling grinds?

Lyger · 20-10-2014 12:54am

Jeez, I have my reservations about aspects of the private school thing but I wouldn't view their existence in and of itself as a disdain towards those who come from marginalised areas and possibly a background where education is not valued.
The most vital foundation to education is the home - has the parent been reading to the child, giving them jigsaws and shapes to work out, teaching them basics in numbers etc.

It would definitely be the ideal if we all had the same access to a good education, but given that we don't, there's no need for resentment towards those who simply opt for private schooling to give their child the best possible education when they have the resources to do so.

20-10-2014 12:54am

steddyeddy wrote: »

You genuinely seem to have a real problem with children from poorer families having access to the same education as those born to better off familes. Every post you make at the suggestion is either "Oh well it can't be done so why try".

That is a very unfair representation of what I've been saying. I've never said it shouldn't be aimed for, only that the variables make true equality of opportunity impossible. I resent the suggestion that I have a problem with equality of education, it's untrue and personally insulting.

You're concentrating on private schools only while totally ignoring the myriad of other factors that advantage one kid over another.

Grinds, facilities, better or worse teachers, parental involvement, housing, parent association fundraising, proximity, cachement areas and more I'm sure I haven't thought of. There is more to the picture than private education.

steddyeddy · 20-10-2014 12:54am

Here's the Finish education inspector explaining how they abolished private schools and the aftermath.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBYcseDSWI4

steddyeddy · 20-10-2014 12:57am

Candie wrote: »

That is a very unfair representation of what I've been saying. I've never said it shouldn't be aimed for, only that the variables make true equality of opportunity impossible. I resent the suggestion that I have a problem with equality of education, it's untrue and personally insulting.

You think that those born into richer families should have access to better teachers?

You're concentrating on private schools only while totally ignoring the myriad of other factors that advantage one kid over another.

No I'm not but the state can't fix the other issues.

Grinds, facilities, better or worse teachers, parental involvement, housing, parent association fundraising, proximity, cachement areas and more I'm sure I haven't thought of. There is more to the picture than private education.

Yes of course but if schools are the least important variable then private schools aren't needed.

Lyger · 20-10-2014 12:58am

steddyeddy wrote: »

You think that those born into richer families should have access to better teachers?

Is acknowledging that they have (and it's not just rich families in fairness), the same as saying that's how it should be?

steddyeddy · 20-10-2014 1:01am

Lyger wrote: »

Is acknowledging that they have (and it's not just rich families in fairness), the same as saying that's how it should be?

No it's not the same but I don't see many on here striving to change things.

20-10-2014 1:08am

steddyeddy wrote: »

You think that those born into richer families should have access to better teachers?

Please don't put words in my mouth and misrepresent me. I didn't say that, and you know I didn't. The teachers worked harder to hang on to their jobs because they could be sacked. The job attracted high calibre candidates because they were better paid. Both those things can be addressed within the state system.

No I'm not but the state can't fix the other issues.

It can go a long way towards it, with improved funding and extra hours for those students interested in and want to take more intensive lessons. Study facilities could be provided in schools with free, well run supervised study sessions for students with households that are hard to study in, subsidised extra curricular for those who can't afford to pursue their passions, and make teachers infinitely more sackable, so that a state job means they can't slack off knowing they're impossible to get rid of. Pay them well and run summer schools for poorly performing students to catch up, use the facilities and staff year round, since they're being paid anyway.

You can go a long way to fixing them, and leave parents with the choice of private education intact. If you want to, that is.

Yes of course but if schools are the least important variable then private schools aren't needed.

Again, I never said that schools were the least important variable, just one of the variables. You really have to stop doing that Eddy, it doesn't reflect well.

There are many things you can do other than remove choices, although it's obviously the easier one if you're that way inclined. Not that it would make any notable difference anyway.

steddyeddy · 20-10-2014 1:12am

Candie you can't even give me a yes no answer. Is it right that children from better off families have access to better teachers or not? I didn't ask why the situation arose or the economics of it I asked is it right. I.E should we strive to change it or strive to keep it as is.

20-10-2014 1:20am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Candie you can't even give me a yes no answer. Is it right that children from better off families have access to better teachers or not? I didn't ask why the situation arose or the economics of it I asked is it right. I.E should we strive to change it or strive to keep it as is.

Eddy, you've accused me of not wanting kids to have a good education if they're from poor backgrounds and made various other insulting insinuations apropos of nothing, but I'll answer you anyway.

No kid should be able to buy a better teacher. The way to make sure all kids have good teachers is to pay them well enough to attract the best of the best, and to make teachers more accountable. If teachers were more easily sacked, the complacency apparent in the State system would greatly diminish.

That would equalise the situation without removing the option of private school. Elevate all schools rather than ban a few you don't approve of. Build from the bottom up, where it's most needed, rather than tear from the top down.

steddyeddy · 20-10-2014 1:20am

OK Candie I'm off to bed. I'm demonstrating a lab tomorrow and If I'm tired every student rich and poor is fecked :S.

You said I misrepresented you well then tell me what you believe should happen in education and if you believe in equality of opportunity.

steddyeddy · 20-10-2014 1:23am

Candie wrote: »

Eddy, you've accused me of not wanting kids to have a good education if they're from poor backgrounds and made various other insulting insinuations apropos of nothing, but I'll answer you anyway.

No kid should be able to buy a better teacher. The way to make sure all kids have good teachers is to pay them well enough to attract the best of the best, and to make teachers more accountable. If teachers were more easily sacked, the complacency apparent in the State system would greatly diminish.

That would equalise the situation without removing the option of private school. Elevate all schools rather than ban a few you don't approve of. Build from the bottom up, where it's most needed, rather than tear from the top down.

We agree 100% then. Why couldn't you just say that? I've come across teachers who shouldn't be there. One teacher is still telling kids that working class children don't aspire to college and hasn't been sacked. We have enough teachers trained up to sack bad or under performing teachers.

20-10-2014 1:24am

steddyeddy wrote: »

OK Candie I'm off to bed. I'm demonstrating a lab tomorrow and If I'm tired every student rich and poor is fecked :S.

You said I misrepresented you well then tell me what you believe should happen in education and if you believe in equality of opportunity.

I have above, quite a few times. You just want to concentrate on private schools though, so it's obviously pointless asking you to take on my suggestions above.

Goodnight Eddy, I understand this is a hard subject for you but because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them enemy agents. I believe the two systems can coexist but the state needs to up it's game and prioritise education above almost everything else, rather than just abolish the relatively few private schools and hope that fixes everything.

jackofalltrades · 20-10-2014 1:25am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually they will if schools aren't allowed to collect fees. That simply act will improve the literacy gap.

How?

If we abolish fee paying schools in the morning, then all the private schools will need significant increases in funding.
Where do you think this funding is going to come from? From an already overstretched education budget.
It will probably lead to a reduction in funding for DEIS schools, which will harm schools in less well off areas.
And there's nothing to stop parents, who used to pay large fees to private schools, using the money to get grinds for their children.

Finland turning around its educational system is a lot more complicated than just banning private schools.

steddyeddy · 20-10-2014 1:34am

Candie wrote: »

I have above, quite a few times. You just want to concentrate on private schools though, so it's obviously pointless asking you to take on my suggestions above.

Goodnight Eddy, I understand this is a hard subject for you but because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them enemy agents. I believe the two systems can coexist but the state needs to up it's game and prioritise education above almost everything else, rather than just abolish the relatively few private schools and hope that fixes everything.

It's hard for me because I care about children not because I hate the children who are doing well. I hate the system because I see so many children who would have had bright futures if not for the circumstances they were born into.

20-10-2014 1:38am

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's hard for me because I care about children not because I hate the children who are doing well. I hate the system because I see so many children who would have had bright futures if not for the circumstances they were born into.

Don't assume anyone doesn't want to see all kids do well. Life is full of challenges and even kids who appear to have every advantage in the book can be held back by something less obvious than a bad school. Just because kids are in private school doesn't mean their lives are easier in every way.

Likewise a kid in a poor area in a underperforming school could come from the happiest home with loving and involved parents, giving that kid a far greater advantage in life than any amount of education ever could.

I see bright kids rising to the top every day, regardless of their start in life. A good many fall to the side, but it's true of kids from all backgrounds. You just never know what someone's story is.

osarusan · 20-10-2014 1:43am

steddyeddy wrote: »

I hate the system because I see so many children who would have had bright futures if not for the circumstances they were born into.

I honestly don't see how forcing private fee-charging schools to change into free state schools is going to make a difference to bright children born into less than idea educational circumstances.

I mean, what will the effect actually be? Class sizes won't be reduced. The same teachers will still be there. The same (poor/lack of) facilities will still be there. In many cases, the child's parents will still have the same apathy towards the child's education.

How will the changes you're advocating actually improve the lot of those students from disadvantaged backgrounds?

steddyeddy · 20-10-2014 1:45am

osarusan wrote: »

I honestly don't see how forcing private fee-charging schools to change into free state schools is going to make a difference to bright children born into less than idea educational circumstances.

I mean, what will the effect actually be? Class sizes won't be reduced. The same teachers will still be there. The same (poor/lack of) facilities will still be there. In many cases, the child's parents will still have the same apathy towards the child's education.

How will the changes you're advocating actually improve the lot of those students from disadvantaged backgrounds?

Actually on consideration Candie's idea makes more sense. Can we do that now?

evolving_doors · 21-10-2014 3:14pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Candie you can't even give me a yes no answer. Is it right that children from better off families have access to better teachers or not? I didn't ask why the situation arose or the economics of it I asked is it right. I.E should we strive to change it or strive to keep it as is.

what do you mean better teachers? They all do the same HDip and go to the same colleges!

cloud493 · 21-10-2014 3:16pm

I think the argument could certainly be made that a teacher in a school with less distruptful, more willing to learn kids, more resources etc, probably would be a better teacher. Thats environment rather than qualifications, perhaps *

*distruptful apparently is a word, but I cant think of a better one.

evolving_doors · 21-10-2014 3:19pm

Could we first acknowledge that there are NO state run schools in ireland...

If you want state run schools then you are talking about getting rid of religious orders on Boards of Management and their ownership of some schools.

Do the govt. want to take the running of schools in charge at a time when they are going the opposite way of farming everything out... hse,nra,rehab,nct,irish water,board gais,esb... the hell they do

Insane private school fees.

Comments