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.

steddyeddy

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.

steddyeddy

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.

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!