Do private schools have a place in society?

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?

blackwhite

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

Do you think that if a rich kid walks into a shop to buy milk they should be made to pay more than a kid from a middle-income family who buys the same product in the same shop?

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 ............

Need to make your mind up here. In one post you are proposing discrimination, but in another you are saying it's wrong? :rolleyes:

Kosseegan

rab!dmonkey wrote: »

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.

In a lot of cases the private schools have perfectly good under used public schools in their ctachment area. Synge street is half empty, so is Oatlands to name but two. If all but the very rich had to send their children to public schools, the standards would rise because the parents would insist on proper resources being allocated.

Scanlas The 2nd

rab!dmonkey wrote: »

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.

Some people just can't handle others having more money than they do. They can't even think about the subject rationally.

steddyeddy

Right people need to read through all my posts. Part of it is my fault because of the threads title. I dont want to get rid of private schools entirely but something needs to be done to close the gap between the private schools and the public schools. Im a capitalist to the bone. Its what enabled me to do well for myself. My purpose behind this thread is to debate the fact that at the moment money is dictating who is going to college. While kids without college dont have the same chance in life. Now to continue the debate Im going to rectify all misconceptions.

• All kids in my opinion have the right to a good education in my opinion and I want as much as possible done to even up the playing field. I dont see how kids should suffer based on their parents lifestyle.
• As I stated before I dont think all kids who go to private schools are rich, spoilt or any other derogatory word.
• I dont think all private schools are the same. Thats why I mentioned private as oppossed to fee paying.
• As regards jealousy Im a postgraduate in biochemistry I have job options to work at most of the top pharmaceutical industries. Im not bragging but I am not nor will not be short of money. I just dont like the idea of my kids benifiting more than other kids because of that.
• My problem is the tax payer funding private schools I dont want to remove all private shcools.

Now based on those points feel free to respond not any perceived notions I may have about jealousy.

Scanlas The 2nd

steddyeddy wrote: »

Right people need to read through all my posts. Part of it is my fault because of the threads title. I dont want to get rid of private schools entirely but something needs to be done to close the gap between the private schools and the public schools. Im a capitalist to the bone. Its what enabled me to do well for myself. My purpose behind this thread is to debate the fact that at the moment money is dictating who is going to college. While kids without college dont have the same chance in life. Now to continue the debate Im going to rectify all misconceptions.

• All kids in my opinion have the right to a good education in my opinion and I want as much as possible done to even up the playing field. I dont see how kids should suffer based on their parents lifestyle.
• As I stated before I dont think all kids who go to private schools are rich, spoilt or any other derogatory word.
• I dont think all private schools are the same. Thats why I mentioned private as oppossed to fee paying.
• As regards jealousy Im a postgraduate in biochemistry I have job options to work at most of the top pharmaceutical industries. Im not bragging but I am not nor will not be short of money. I just dont like the idea of my kids benifiting more than other kids because of that.
• My problem is the tax payer funding private schools I dont want to remove all public shcools.

Now based on those points feel free to respond not any perceived notions I may have about jealousy.

What's preventing children succeeding financially who go to public school? They are given everything they need to succeed.

steddyeddy

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What's preventing children succeeding financially who go to public school? They are given everything they need to succeed.

Well I did but a lot arent doing so well. I come from a disadvantaged background but a lot come from worse. This article highlights the difference in basic literacy between fee paying and public shcools.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0413/1224314683768.html
grassroots and from the TUI to end State supports for private schools.

STUDENTS IN fee-paying schools are two years ahead of their counterparts in vocational schools in literacy skills, according to a study which underlines the two-tier nature of Irish education.
The study says the performance of 15-year-old students in 254 vocational schools – many from socially deprived backgrounds – also lags behind other teenagers in community and comprehensive schools and those in other non-fee-paying secondary schools.
It also finds that students from fee-paying schools are drawn from the most advantaged strata of Irish society – despite claims these schools have students from all backgrounds.
Responding to the report last night Teacher’s Union of Ireland General Secretary John MacGabhann said it was now time for the State to stop providing “a turbo boost to the already privileged.’’
Fee paying schools receive €100 million annually from the exchequer.
The OECD study analyses the 2009 OECD/Pisa rankings on literacy among Irish teenagers.
Ireland was ranked 17th in the OECD on literacy, down from fifth in 2000, the sharpest drop experienced by any developed nation.
The Department of Education is examining how these schools spend an additional €100 million they receive annually in fee payments from parents. It is also examining admission policies in schools, including the use of sibling policies where family members of current and former pupils are given preference.
The use of these sibling policies is specifically criticised in the new report. It says they play a key role in helping private schools draw students from the better-off section of society. “On average, schools that exercised this preference had a student enrolment with a socioeconomic score that was . . . higher than schools that did not.”
The study says parents are drawn to private schools “mostly because of the composition of their student bodies. This finding suggests that (socioeconomic) stratification may increase over time unless some structural changes occur”.
Dr Jude Cosgrove, of the Educational Research Centre at St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra, Dublin, which oversees Pisa in Ireland, says the findings show pupils in fee-paying schools do better because their students are the most advantaged. “Clearly, achievement differences between school types in Ireland are related to the socioeconomic background of their students,” she said.
Overall, vocational schools had an average reading score of 466 points, compared to 487 in community and comprehensive schools, 504 in non-fee-paying secondary schools, and 539 in fee-paying secondary schools.
Students in vocational schools, however, had above-average levels of disadvantage when compared with other schools.
Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn is under pressure from the Labour

The bits in bold highlight some of my problems with the current system.

steddyeddy

mloc wrote: »

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".

Money wouldnt be a problem when It comes to sending my kids to any of those schools thanks. Its a matter people from disadvataged areas being two years behind and what can be done about it.

XxMCRxBabyxX

steddyeddy wrote: »

mloc wrote: »

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".

Money wouldnt be a problem when It comes to sending my kids to any of those schools thanks. Its a matter people from disadvataged areas being two years behind and what can be done about it.

I really don't see how private schools are to blame for the mindset of other schools? Yes, more students go to college from private schools but that doesn't actually stop any other students from attending. The problem is the mindset that students have due to their families, peers, etc. Not because of other schools

If you want to fix the problem in disadvantaged areas then go after that. You want to educate those children and encourage them to want to further their education. Don't attack private schools for no reason.

foxyboxer

Do we think that the notion of "It's not what you know, it's who you know" is still prevalent in Ireland? Especially in relation to the perceived networking benefits that a Private school of repute may afford?

steddyeddy

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I really don't see how private schools are to blame for the mindset of other schools? Yes, more students go to college from private schools but that doesn't actually stop any other students from attending. The problem is the mindset that students have due to their families, peers, etc. Not because of other schools

If you want to fix the problem in disadvantaged areas then go after that. You want to educate those children and encourage them to want to further their education. Don't attack private schools for no reason.

Im not trying to attack the idea of a private school Im just not great at getting my argument across evidently so apologies for that. I dont like certain aspects of private schools in Ireland like the fact that they reciece government funding. I dont think a lot of them accept whoever pays a certain amount of fees either. According to the report above and others like it some private schools are very careful who they let in.

steddyeddy

foxyboxer wrote: »

Do we think that the notion of "It's not what you know, it's who you know" is still prevalent in Ireland? Especially in relation to the perceived networking benefits that a Private school of repute may afford?

Bigtime! Ireland has a problem with cronyisim. Private schools in some cases may add to that problem.

shootermacg

met my child minder on the way home from work, she looked really bothered, apparently some of the scum from a nearby estate, actually started intimidating her and then one dropped his pants and took a **** on the floor.

No I don't want my children encountering this on a regular basis, I don't care why these people are the way they are, really don't. I just don't want my kids to think this is remotely normal behavior.

XxMCRxBabyxX

steddyeddy wrote: »

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I really don't see how private schools are to blame for the mindset of other schools? Yes, more students go to college from private schools but that doesn't actually stop any other students from attending. The problem is the mindset that students have due to their families, peers, etc. Not because of other schools

If you want to fix the problem in disadvantaged areas then go after that. You want to educate those children and encourage them to want to further their education. Don't attack private schools for no reason.

Im not trying to attack the idea of a private school Im just not great at getting my argument across evidently so apologies for that. I dont like certain aspects of private schools in Ireland like the fact that they reciece government funding. I dont think a lot of them accept whoever pays a certain amount of fees either. According to the report above and others like it some private schools are very careful who they let in.

Every school in the country, private or state, has an admissions policy, and nearly all include a provision that gives siblings priority as mentioned in the report. That's only fair seeing as most parents want their children to all be in the same school. You also sometimes find that people of certain religions will get priority, again only fair if the school is follows a certain religious ethos.

None of that is "picking and choosing". No school, state or private, can refuse a student just because. If the student can pay the fees and there's room for them the school has to accept them really. They don't have the choice to be "careful" for the most part.

Chuck Stone

mloc wrote: »

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.

This is wrong. The schools are not private. They are fee-paying with teachers salaries being paid from the public purse.

seeing as the parents of those children are already paying, on average, significantly more to the education system than those attending public schools,

I'd like to see some evidence for this assertion.

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.

This too is nonsense. With the state already picking up the bill for the majority of the costs of a fee-paying school all it would have to do is take over the school and make up the difference.

Squiggle wrote: »

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.

You used caricatures to make an emotional argument to win over the reader. That's tabloid style writing.

Duggys Housemate

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What's preventing children succeeding financially who go to public school? They are given everything they need to succeed.

Except networking.

UrbanSea

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

What makes you think that just because someone went to a private school that they didn't have to work as hard as someone from a public school? That's just an ignorant generalisation.

steddyeddy

UrbanSea wrote: »

What makes you think that just because someone went to a private school that they didn't have to work as hard as someone from a public school? That's just an ignorant generalisation.

I dont think it I took him up on it as I said previously. I do think people from different situations works harder than others. A person from a advantaged background didnt work as hard in life to get to the same position as a person from a disadvantaged shcool did. Read my previous posts I know not all private school kids are rich. Im aware some families make massive sacrifices for their kids.

foxyboxer

Private School, National School, I'm sure we can agree that School sucked/sucks. :cool:

Anita Blow

steddyeddy wrote: »

Right people need to read through all my posts. Part of it is my fault because of the threads title. I dont want to get rid of private schools entirely but something needs to be done to close the gap between the private schools and the public schools. Im a capitalist to the bone. Its what enabled me to do well for myself. My purpose behind this thread is to debate the fact that at the moment money is dictating who is going to college. While kids without college dont have the same chance in life. Now to continue the debate Im going to rectify all misconceptions.

How? You yourself have said you're from a disadvantaged background and have succeeded in college. To say that money dictates who goes to college here is completely untrue.
1) Those who cannot afford college fees have their fees paid for by the government.
2)Many colleges have access programmes for those from disadvantaged areas which provide alternative routes to the course they want besides the Leaving Cert, like Trinity Access Programme/UCD New Era.
3)Government runs the DARE Scheme for those from disadvantaged areas which offers them lower points for the courses they want.
4)We have one of the fairest college entry systems anywhere, one that makes it virtually impossible for colleges to discriminate. All they get is a CAO Number, none of your information til you accept an offer.

Everything is being done to increase participation from disadvantaged students and yet there has been no big increase since free fees were introduced. Meanwhile, those in middle or higher incomes have none of these advantages and so must do everything they can to get their course. If people want to pay for private schools to achieve that then so be it. The problem isn't with private schools, it's with the culture and attitude of those in disadvantaged areas.

steddyeddy wrote: »

All kids in my opinion have the right to a good education in my opinion and I want as much as possible done to even up the playing field. I dont see how kids should suffer based on their parents lifestyle.

And that is why every student gets the exact same capitation grant from government, whether they're rich or poor. The government treats every student equally this way.
It's ridiculous to say that going to a public school is a "punishment" for students because of their parents wealth. It's what their parents pay for with their tax and it offers the exact same curriculum, books and exams as private schools. Extra money in private schools goes into extra facilities and extra study time. If parents want to pay for that for their child then they are absolutely entitled to do that.

Judging by the amount of people saying they're from public school and did well, in this thread, you don't really have an argument against private schools. It's a free country and if people want to pay for it then so be it. Likewise, if they're being directly funded by the parents (except for the teachers which are state-paid) then they are well within their right to exercise admission policies.

Finally, state-funding shouldn't be removed. You seem to want equality, but only when it benefits the disadvantaged at the expense of those who have worked hard for their money. Why should a person pay far more in tax than others, but receive far less for the tax they're paying?
Even then, that assumes that loads of people in private schools are from rich families. Many of the people I know that went to private school weren't from rich families, but from middle class families who worked hard and had to forego other things just to give that boost to their children. If state-subsidy was taken away, they wouldn't be able to afford the increase in price and would have to move to a public school. At a time when our public schools are already under severe pressure in class sizes and finances, they really can't take that extra hit.

XxMCRxBabyxX

steddyeddy wrote: »

UrbanSea wrote: »

What makes you think that just because someone went to a private school that they didn't have to work as hard as someone from a public school? That's just an ignorant generalisation.

I dont think it I took him up on it as I said previously. I do think people from different situations works harder than others. A person from a advantaged background didnt work as hard in life to get to the same position as a person from a disadvantaged shcool did. Read my previous posts I know not all private school kids are rich. Im aware some families make massive sacrifices for their kids.

You are still generalising. There is more to a person's work ethic than their school and background. It's not like most "advantaged" people were just handed their position. They worked just as hard as anyone else to get it.

steddyeddy

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

You are still generalising. There is more to a person's work ethic than their school and background. It's not like most "advantaged" people were just handed their position. They worked just as hard as anyone else to get it.

Thats where Im going to have to disagree. Some people have rubbish teachers and some have better teachers, some have supportive home lives and some have crap home lives. Not everyone works equally hard. While saying that very few people get anything handed to them. I certainly dont think private school kids have it any easier in college academically. Some have an easier time of getting to college IMO.

XxMCRxBabyxX

steddyeddy wrote: »

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

You are still generalising. There is more to a person's work ethic than their school and background. It's not like most "advantaged" people were just handed their position. They worked just as hard as anyone else to get it.

Thats where Im going to have to disagree. Some people have rubbish teachers and some have better teachers, some have supportive home lives and some have crap home lives. Not everyone works equally hard. While saying that very few people get anything handed to them. I certainly dont think private school kids have it any easier in college academically. Some have an easier time of getting to college IMO.

And what exactly of the factors you mentioned there can affect disadvantaged kids and not private school ones?

_Gawd_

The REAL question is - Do Public Schools have a place in society?

Jesus wept.

steddyeddy

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

And what exactly of the factors you mentioned there can affect disadvantaged kids and not private school ones?

With relation to the private schools a better student to teacher ratio and choice of subjects. With relation to an advantaged background such as good parents or supportive parents the advantages of unsupportive parents are clear to see. Private schools on average certainly have more money to invest more in teachers.

Rocket19

steddyeddy wrote: »

Right people need to read through all my posts. Part of it is my fault because of the threads title. I dont want to get rid of private schools entirely but something needs to be done to close the gap between the private schools and the public schools. Im a capitalist to the bone. Its what enabled me to do well for myself. My purpose behind this thread is to debate the fact that at the moment money is dictating who is going to college. While kids without college dont have the same chance in life. Now to continue the debate Im going to rectify all misconceptions.

• All kids in my opinion have the right to a good education in my opinion and I want as much as possible done to even up the playing field. I dont see how kids should suffer based on their parents lifestyle.
• As I stated before I dont think all kids who go to private schools are rich, spoilt or any other derogatory word.
• I dont think all private schools are the same. Thats why I mentioned private as oppossed to fee paying.
• As regards jealousy Im a postgraduate in biochemistry I have job options to work at most of the top pharmaceutical industries. Im not bragging but I am not nor will not be short of money. I just dont like the idea of my kids benifiting more than other kids because of that.
• My problem is the tax payer funding private schools I dont want to remove all private shcools.

Now based on those points feel free to respond not any perceived notions I may have about jealousy.

I said this already, but heck, I'll say it again.
Abolishing funding to fee-paying schools, of course, plays into the communist idea of "fairness", where kids aren't given an outright advantage because of their background, parents' financial situation, etc.
You must realise though, that this IS a purely communist point of view, and not everyone will agree with it. There are so, so many flaws in the argument. Of course, most people would agree that no child should suffer a terrible/inferior education, but just how far do your views extend? Do you think there should be a limit of what size/price a house people can buy? Should there be a ban introduced on SUVs, designer clothing, etc? Should people be allowed private healthcare? Should they be allowed take part in expensive, luxury hobbies?
Like it or not, it is an inherently human trait to want to display wealth and status. It's not exactly nice, but it's been that way since early humanity.

As regards "entitlements" from the state, you simply can't disregard the contribution of high-earners' taxes to the system. I don't know the figures off the top of my head, and I'm not overly bothered to check them now, but I do know that a massive proportion (majority) of income tax comes from the wealthy. The people who are sending their kids to these school (for the most-part) are the ones paying more taxes, and are arguably just as, if not more entitled to their schools being covered by state funding.
From a communist point of view, yes it's not great. But from a logistical point of view, if people WANT to throw additional money on top of what they're ALREADY entitled to, this is fair.

Also, I don't agree that the abolition of (state funding of) private schools could somehow encourage less wealthy kids into the universities. How on earth does this correlate? I'd agree with the importance of access to university for everyone, but at the moment, it couldn't be more easy for more disadvantaged kids to get access to higher education. I hope I'm not being too naive in saying that. We do after all, have 'free fees'. Grant systems mean that people coming from lower income families have the registration fees covered (now €2000 in UCD). I mean, surely the people mostly feeling the pinch are the (lower) middle classes who are slightly above the grant threshold?
I remember reading stats indicating that the 'free fees' did nothing to further encourage more disadvantaged students into higher education. Whether you strive to go to university or not is much more deeply ingrained, and more complex issue than what school you happened to attend.

Edit..When you said you were "capitalist to the bone", did you mean "communist"? 'Moneyless', classless, stateless sort of order? How can you hold the views you've stated and still call yourself a "capitalist"?

Randy Anders

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thats where Im going to have to disagree. Some people have rubbish teachers and some have better teachers, some have supportive home lives and some have crap home lives. Not everyone works equally hard. While saying that very few people get anything handed to them. I certainly dont think private school kids have it any easier in college academically. Some have an easier time of getting to college IMO.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to the parenting

I know plenty of people from all walks of life who have done great for themselves, and I find the common factor is that they have all been brought up well at home

If someone from a 'working class area' attends a public school and is brought up well, they have absolutely the same chances of going on to third level as someone who attends a private school. There are no financial barriers to college for people from poorer areas as there's a decent grant scheme in place

The problem is that people from poorer areas are more likely to be subject to problems at home than someone from a balanced back ground

XxMCRxBabyxX

steddyeddy wrote: »

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

And what exactly of the factors you mentioned there can affect disadvantaged kids and not private school ones?

With relation to the private schools a better student to teacher ratio and choice of subjects. With relation to an advantaged background such as good parents or supportive parents the advantages of unsupportive parents are clear to see. Private schools on average certainly have more money to invest more in teachers.

You can still get crap teachers and then ratios mean nothing. Some state schools also have smaller numbers than private. I know mine did.

Unsupportive parents do also exist in private education. Just because a parents pays for their Childs education doesn't always mean they will be supportive of their child for whatever reason.

_Gawd_

steddyeddy wrote: »

With relation to the private schools a better student to teacher ratio and choice of subjects. With relation to an advantaged background such as good parents or supportive parents the advantages of unsupportive parents are clear to see. Private schools on average certainly have more money to invest more in teachers.

You said you were a capitalist to the bone - which means that you're against taxpayers funding private schools - I agree, this is wrong. Private schools should be able to survive based on their own abilities.

Secondly, as a capitalist to the bone, you are also aware of the fact that as a capitalist, the public sector is satan personified.

steddyeddy

Randy Anders wrote: »

At the end of the day I think it comes down to the parenting

I know plenty of people from all walks of life who have done great for themselves, and I find the common factor is that they have all been brought up well at home

If someone from a 'working class area' attends a public school and is brought up well, they have absolutely the same chances of going on to third level as someone who attends a private school. There are no financial barriers to college for people from poorer areas as there's a decent grant scheme in place

The problem is that people from poorer areas are more likely to be subject to problems at home than someone from a balanced back ground[/QUOTE]


Very true. Thats why I dont want state funding to go to private schools that have a substantial proportion of students from wealthy backgrounds. (Before anyone bursts a blood vessel Im referring only to those private schools who have a compliment of those from wealthy backgrounds).

Randy Anders

steddyeddy wrote: »

The problem is that people from poorer areas are more likely to be subject to problems at home than someone from a balanced back ground[/QUOTE]

Very true. Thats why I dont want state funding to go to private schools that have a substantial proportion of students from wealthy backgrounds. (Before anyone bursts a blood vessel Im referring only to those private schools who have a compliment of those from wealthy backgrounds).

Well I definitely agree that the state should not be funding private schools when there are far needier public schools in need of renovation etc

eyescreamcone

The state pays an amount towards the education of every child in the country.
If some parents wish to top up this amount, in order to give their children what they perceive as a better education with better facilities, then why not??

Everybody is entitled to a certain amount from the state towards education.
If a parent wishes to spend more of their own money on grinds, a perceived better school or just on more books then I fail to see why we should stop them.

Parents' spending their own money on children's education!
Good luck I say!

Better than spending dole money on beer and fags and crying about the cost of school books!

I went to a public school but will send my children to a fee paying school if I can afford it.

quietsailor

From steddyeddy's earlier post (in bold)
With relation to the private schools a better student to teacher ratio and choice of subjects.
Of course they do, their parents are willing to pay more and thus there are more teachers paid.

With relation to an advantaged background such as good parents or supportive parents the advantages of unsupportive parents are clear to see.
Again this is down to better parents, nothing to do with government funding

Private schools on average certainly have more money to invest more in teachers
if I knew how I'd put in a facepalm icon here - Of course they do---- THE PARENTS USE THEIR OWN MONEY.

What exactly is your problem? I can't understand it from your posts.
You say your a capitalist - yet you don't want people to pay more and get more
You say you have no problem with supportive parents, yet when they are willing to pay more for better facilities you scream unfair and demand the schools are shut down.

What exactly do you want? As long as the state gives an equal amount of money per child eduacated to each school how can it be unfair.

To use an analogy - if my parents buy me an audi and yours buy you a toyota you want what -- the audi factory shut down? Tough luck there buddy, if I work hard and earn money then I am allowed to purchase extras to make my life easier. Healthcare, better houses, better education for myself and my children.

If you don't like this why don't you donate your money to the local public school, or your time & skills teaching the children Maths and Sciences (it was you that said your in bio-pharmacy isn't it?). That would be a much better way of "making the system fair (as you see it) than giving out about it on boards.ie

BasedHobbes

I'd like to offer my own insight into the Private/Public schools debate.

I've attended a private school in Dublin for six years now (sitting the leaving this year). I went to a NS in Ashbourne, and most of my class went on to the local community school. Both my uncles attended a private school in Dublin, and so my parents were eager to send me there. I was also the target of a lot of bullying in primary, and my parents were worried it would continue in the local secondary.
When I first entered my school, I expected it to be full of elitist, upper class children with little king complexes. I couldn't have been further from the truth. Almost all students at the school were from middle class, normal families. None were particularly wealthy, and none were elitist in attitude. Most of the children I met had parents who worked incredibly hard to send them to my school (annual fees were around €4000 euro). My school does not recieve the additional payments from the department for extracurricular supplies et al (not sure what the actual suppliment is called, sorry), and hence parents pay for it. My folks took extra hours and cut corners to send me to my school.

Do I think it was worth it? Yes.
The relationship I have with my teachers is extraordinary. My school puts emphasis on how strong the bonds are between students and teachers. Thanks to this, I have never been the victim of any bullying in secondary. The facilities in my school are equally brilliant. I have been given a huge range of opprotunities throughout my time in my school. Academically, I've achieved far above what I thought possible. I love my school.

Is my school elitist? No.
As I said earlier, most of my classmates have hardworking parents who put a significant amount of their salaries towards their child's education. My school is involved in countless social activism and goodwill programmes (including the sleepout on O'Connell St., which will probably reveal which school I go to :P). We also have a scholarship programme, which accounts for 10% of all students in our school. The Jesuit ethos in my school encourages us to partake in these programmes.

As regards the subsidies given to private schools by the state (to pay teacher's salaries et al), I fail to see why these schools recieve such animosity. My teachers are paid the exact same amount as teachers from any school in the country. The only difference is that my parents pay for the "extras" in my education, not the taxpayer. Hence, we actually save the state (and the public) money.

Yes, I may have recieved a higher quality of education then other students in the country (although I doubt this, having seen the excellent facilities in my local community school). However, if we were to abolish fee-paying schools, more monetary strain would be put on the budget. We would have to accomodate all the students in fee-paying schools who would cease paying for their education and transfer to the public system. Hence, the quality of education would drop for everyone. Why should people who want to put money towards their child's education be forced to send them to a school with less facilities? It would only damage us as a whole in the long run.

steddyeddy

quietsailor wrote: »

From steddyeddy's earlier post (in bold)
With relation to the private schools a better student to teacher ratio and choice of subjects.
Of course they do, their parents are willing to pay more and thus there are more teachers paid.

With relation to an advantaged background such as good parents or supportive parents the advantages of unsupportive parents are clear to see.
Again this is down to better parents, nothing to do with government funding

Private schools on average certainly have more money to invest more in teachers
if I knew how I'd put in a facepalm icon here - Of course they do---- THE PARENTS USE THEIR OWN MONEY.

What exactly is your problem? I can't understand it from your posts.
You say your a capitalist - yet you don't want people to pay more and get more
You say you have no problem with supportive parents, yet when they are willing to pay more for better facilities you scream unfair and demand the schools are shut down.

What exactly do you want? As long as the state gives an equal amount of money per child eduacated to each school how can it be unfair.

To use an analogy - if my parents buy me an audi and yours buy you a toyota you want what -- the audi factory shut down? Tough luck there buddy, if I work hard and earn money then I am allowed to purchase extras to make my life easier. Healthcare, better houses, better education for myself and my children.

If you don't like this why don't you donate your money to the local public school, or your time & skills teaching the children Maths and Sciences (it was you that said your in bio-pharmacy isn't it?). That would be a much better way of "making the system fair (as you see it) than giving out about it on boards.ie

Ill get back to the other points in your post when I have more time to do them justice. Just to clear up im currently doing research in biochem in ucd. Ill be hopefully working with genezyme in america next year. It will be in a research capacity. So im not loaded yet but ill be doing ok.

Galwayguy35

My cousins live in Dublin and they both went to private school. I've only their word for it of course but they say there is no denying that they got a better education. If parents can afford it then it is their money and fair play to them for wanting to give their kids the best start in life. If I have kids it just wouldn't be an option to send them private as I earn a low wage.

steddyeddy

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

My cousins live in Dublin and they both went to private school. I've only their word for it of course but they say there is no denying that they got a better education. If parents can afford it then it is their money and fair play to them for wanting to give their kids the best start in life. If I have kids it just wouldn't be an option to send them private as I earn a low wage.

Im not faulting the parents good intentions at all. My problem is with state funding.

Superbus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im not faulting the parents good intentions at all. My problem is with state funding.

At no point in the thread however, despite having more than 60 posts in it, have you addressed the valid reasons as to why state funding of these schools is actually a good thing, such as mine here or Finlay's just above this. I really want to hear your take on it.

steddyeddy

Superbus wrote: »

At no point in the thread however, despite having more than 60 posts in it, have you addressed the valid reasons as to why state funding of these schools is actually a good thing, such as mine here or Finlay's just above this. I really want to hear your take on it.

I promise I will get to it Im to busy to respond to the points made properly. If I get time tonight I will post. Im sorry about the delay.

Superbus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Superbus wrote: »

At no point in the thread however, despite having more than 60 posts in it, have you addressed the valid reasons as to why state funding of these schools is actually a good thing, such as mine here or Finlay's just above this. I really want to hear your take on it.

I promise I will get to it Im to busy to respond to the points made properly. If I get time tonight I will post. Im sorry about the delay.

Too busy at 11 on a Sunday night, despite having already replied a few minutes earlier?

Grand so.

SChique00

Okay, so I go to a private school - and from what I can see there lies no difference in either the actual facilities of our school (if anything they're below par compared to the public schools in town), the attitudes of the students (there are hard workers such as myself but there are also layabouts - only difference is their parents pay for them to show such disregard towards their futures) or the curriculum. Yes the student/teacher ratio is lower, but as countless posts have stated before me, the parents PAY for this advantage.
It costs the government much less to keep a private student in education over the six years (and this cost is mainly related to exams), and (in our school anyway) all building projects are funded almost entirely by fees from parents. I'm not going to pretend to understand the ins and outs of educational finance, but what I'm trying to say is - most private schools don't attempt to support elitism; certainly not in my case. I chose to go to this school before I even knew it was a private institution - I didn't get into my school of choice (a local public convent). I am not rich, and while there are snobs who are there for image, and the odd student has a fairly minted family, the majority of my classmates come from a very similiar background to my own.
Parents pay for their children's education by and large because they know that the public system is sub-par in many respects. That is not to say that a student from a public school cannot do just as well (if not better) than a private school student - that all comes down to hard work and intelligence - but I believe the lower student numbers give a strong sense of community in my school, and you feel your teachers really care about your progress, encouraging your abilities and doing their best to help you fulfill your potentional. However I can only speak on the part of my school - for all I know other people from public schools feel this way also I do feel sorry for families who cannot afford to send their children to private schools, but the fact is they do deserve a place in society. You may as well argue that private healthcare is unfair - there is no substantial difference upon which to base a credible argument.
Is this all because of that Midweek special on TV3? Because you cannot trust the amount of crap that comes out of that station - it's the Irish Fox, for crying out loud...