Shutting down private schools

RubyRoss

jank wrote: »

Typical socialist nonsense. Thinking that they are more aware of what subjects someone should study rather then the individual themselves.

Socialist nonsense?

Universal education, with a pre-defined cannon of books covering a wide-range of subjects, is unequivocally an Enlightenment idea – predating socialism by over a century. Not everything you disagree with is a socialist plot. Those arguing against universal education are being anti-Enlightenment not anti-socialist.

Educationalists do not think they know what subjects ‘someone’ should study; they plan a curriculum of subjects for all schools in the country. Whether a given student has the opportunity to choose among these subjects or to do extra-circular subjects is dependent on a whole host of other factors relating to the region, school, family, ect.
Not all state defined programmes can be translated into a simple attack on individual civil liberties.

KyussBishop

bwatson wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more if I tried. Its no surprise to see which columnist and which newspaper this article eminates from.

I suppose we should also shut down all restaurants but McDonalds and Kentucky because working class parents can't afford to treat their children to a meal at a michelin star place. I too suppose we should stop richer parents taking their children to the United States on holiday because some can only afford to take theirs to Butlins? These are the next steps, surely?

In the context of the UK, the argument that the issues of social segregation and imbalance of equal opportunity, are analogous to complaining about some people being able to afford better restaurants or cars, is a totally facetious strawman.

It deliberately and dishonestly ignores that the issue is not directed at that of personal choice (primarily why people haven't made the analogy in this thread until now), that a large percentage do not even have that choice, and that those who benefit (the kids) do not make the choice or even have the monetary means to (i.e. it is a benefit solely of inherited i.e. unearned wealth). The issues arise from the wider problems above which specifically affect opportunities and politics (among more) in the UK.

bwatson wrote: »

Maybe this particular guardian columnist should look to improve the standard of those severely underperforming state schools in the UK (of which there are staggering amounts) before he tries to hundreds more state schools to accomodate for those who were forced out of public schools?

Perhaps you missed the part of the article where it outlines that the people in the best position to do something about that, the wealthy with political connections and politicians themselves, come from a background of private education and have little incentive to do anything about it? (since they simply bypass the public system)

In the UK, if these better off and politically connected families were not able to simply opt-out of the public system, they would have a more direct interest in seeing it improve.

Where the balance here in Ireland, does not favour curtailing of private education (from my point of view after the progress of arguments in the thread), in the UK there is a far stronger argument of the pitfalls of social segregation (particularly regarding political segregation as a result of that), creating a situation where the curtailing of choice between public/private is outweighed by the social/political benefits.

Eliot Rosewater

RubyRoss wrote: »

Universal education, with a pre-defined cannon of books covering a wide-range of subjects, is unequivocally an Enlightenment idea – predating socialism by over a century. Not everything you disagree with is a socialist plot. Those arguing against universal education are being anti-Enlightenment not anti-socialist.

I think that's a little over the top. The comparison between the canon and a universal curriculum is not very strong. One could say that the idea of having a broad education that takes in lots of diverse subjects is an Enlightenment ideal, but having every minutiae of those subjects dictated by a central department hardly sits well with Enlightenment ideals of free inquiry.

Also, one must remark that universal education didn't even exist in Enlightenment times. So trying to stereotype those who argue for more private schools as anti-Enlightenment (read: bad) really just strikes me as a cheap shot. And, of course, opposite to the spirit of academic debate.


I, personally, am open to any views on education as long as the motives behind them are pure. I'm not willing to engage with Gaelgoirs because their motivation is to use the education of children as a platform for Irish - and that is opposed to my ideal of using the education system to educate in the best manner possible. In this debate motives can get muddled. Sometimes, when I see shoddy arguments in favor of cutting funding to private schools, I have a strong feeling that that person is only arguing for that policy in order to satisfy their gut instinct to hit out at "the rich". Some arguments for full privatization are motivated by views on natural rights and do not, again, consider the outcomes first and foremost.

But in the end I suppose it doesn't really matter, as our rational analysis skills can always be the last arbitrator - and the motive of a person does not strictly affect the rational merit of what they're saying.

K-9

BOHtox wrote: »

I'm against State subsidies for private enterprise. The €300 example I was posting is that not all schools will cost €5000 to attend. The subsidies only amount to €100m of an ~€8.5b education budget. Do that math!

1/85th of the education budget.

Hardly that low when you take account that's only for 26,000 pupils and 50 odd schools! Works out at about €4,000 a student, per year. When you add the public school secondary numbers and primary level numbers it isn't as insignificant a percentage as you think. The average fees charged are €5/6,000 so it would appear the real cost, if you took away state subsidies, would be €9/10,000 per student, per annum.

Eliot Rosewater

This article reports that there are 1 million people in education altogether. Assuming, naively, that this is distributed evenly, that works out at €8,000+ per person - a lot more than €4000. Obviously the exact figures are more complex. I've a feeling that the tertiary sector gets more per person. An exact breakdown would be nice. A quick Google returned nothing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

This article reports that there are 1 million people in education altogether. Assuming, naively, that this is distributed evenly, that works out at €8,000+ per person - a lot more than €4000. Obviously the exact figures are more complex. I've a feeling that the tertiary sector gets more per person. An exact breakdown would be nice. A quick Google returned nothing.

Not being smart but isn't it kind of obvious the state subvention for private schools is going to be less than that for public? The private school subvention is for pay only and it is then up to the school if they want to employ more teachers and what level of extra services they provide.

State schools would get a contribution towards running costs obviously. As you say we don't have much to go on but roughly €4,000 extra (above pay) for state schools would seem to compare quite favorably with the €5/6,000 average parents have to pay for private schools (above pay).

Private schools would probably have better facilities and more choice but state education has invested heavily in special needs education for example, which unfortunately is the first area to be cut. Private education doesn't have that type of expense.

I think posters have to remember as was posted earlier, we have a semi-private secondary level system here, not a private one.

RubyRoss

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Also, one must remark that universal education didn't even exist in Enlightenment times. So trying to stereotype those who argue for more private schools as anti-Enlightenment (read: bad) really just strikes me as a cheap shot. And, of course, opposite to the spirit of academic debate.

I wrote that universal education was an Enlightenment idea - naturally the concept did not exist beforehand but emerged during the period: i.e the 18th Century …during which Poland set up one of the earliest incarnations of a ministry of education/instruction (1770s).


And I did not stereotype those who ‘argue for more private school’ – I clearly referred to those arguing against state-education on the grounds that it represents socialist ideology.

RubyRoss

Permabear I agree with your point on religion but why is it so astoundingly awful that the Irish language is on the Irish curriculum…what about Irish plays and novels…Irish history?

Of course, such subjects are always going to be contentious in terms of how they represent that nation but are you saying we should abandon these subjects altogether in favour of private perspectives?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JustinDee

There really is a ridiculous line of begrudgery in Ireland when it comes to the schools system.
If your kids go to a private school then you are deemed 'rich'. If not, you're 'one of us'.
Complete rubbish.

Couples save for years to send their kids to the schools of their choice. Other couples who don't get to spend on other things and still manage to send Fiacra and Ophelia to an Irish-speaking school if they get their names in the queue early enough.

Seriously, the day Paddy stops looking over the neighbour's hedge and just gets on with his life instead of wailing about others, cannot come too soon.

creedp

JustinDee wrote: »

There really is a ridiculous line of begrudgery in Ireland when it comes to the schools system.
If your kids go to a private school then you are deemed 'rich'. If not, you're 'one of us'.
Complete rubbish.

Couples save for years to send their kids to the schools of their choice. Other couples who don't get to spend on other things and still manage to send Fiacra and Ophelia to an Irish-speaking school if they get their names in the queue early enough.

Seriously, the day Paddy stops looking over the neighbour's hedge and just gets on with his life instead of wailing about others, cannot come too soon.

The only reason Fiacra and Ophelia go to private /semi-private schools is becasue their parents want them to get ahead of those kids who have public only education. Its the same reason why people have private health insurance, i.e. to get ahead of a public only patient irrespective of whether the public patinet is more in need of the service. Nothing wrong with that in itself .. the law of the jungle says so ... but the Q is whether the taxpayer should subsidise Fiacra and Ophelia's preferential status? As usual when this is questioned the bregrudery card is played. Its funny how when people question an advantage received by persons, who normally are in the higher socio-economic categories, this is automatically begrudgery in tihs country. What the State needs to do is provide a quality public education service that all have equal access to. If people want to go outside this publicly funded system to gain an advantage that's no problem but they should pay for this advantage. IMO, its begrudgery that people who receive this advantage should complain when the subsidisation of advantage is questioned.

RMD

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

This article reports that there are 1 million people in education altogether. Assuming, naively, that this is distributed evenly, that works out at €8,000+ per person - a lot more than €4000. Obviously the exact figures are more complex. I've a feeling that the tertiary sector gets more per person. An exact breakdown would be nice. A quick Google returned nothing.

I forget the exact figures but a few months back Gerry Foley the Belvedere College head quoted some figures on a Primetime debate which have been published by the DoE, costing per head roughly 4000 private and 8000 public. The main difference between the 2 is private schools receive only teachers saleries while public receive money for other operating expenses involved.

I went to a private school, it wasn't some school of excellence that bred snobbery and arrogance. It was a school that bred into you from day 1 an honest and hardworking view on life, being grateful for what you have and helping others who aren't as privileged. It wasn't a place of extreme wealth, there were many on the scholarship scheme and many parents who were budgeting hard to afford the fees including my own. To say private schools are only attended by the elite is very very insulting to many families I know who worked their ass off to afford these schools.

OldNotWIse

If people want to pay for a better education for their children that's their choice. What a ridiculous proposal. Next they'll be banning private healthcare in the hopes that those who have money will prop up that system too...

OldNotWIse

RMD wrote: »

I forget the exact figures but a few months back Gerry Foley the Belvedere College head quoted some figures on a Primetime debate which have been published by the DoE, costing per head roughly 4000 private and 8000 public. The main difference between the 2 is private schools receive only teachers saleries while public receive money for other operating expenses involved.

I went to a private school, it wasn't some school of excellence that bred snobbery and arrogance. It was a school that bred into you from day 1 an honest and hardworking view on life, being grateful for what you have and helping others who aren't as privileged. It wasn't a place of extreme wealth, there were many on the scholarship scheme and many parents who were budgeting hard to afford the fees including my own. To say private schools are only attended by the elite is very very insulting to many families I know who worked their ass off to afford these schools.

I went private also and although there were some snobs in my class, my family were certainly not snobby. My parents did without to send me there. My Dad spent the best years of his life lugging rolls of lead up and down ladders and fixing roofs so that his family could have a good education. My parents don't spend money on smoking and drinking. I used to get so angry with people telling me that I "only did welll in school because my parents paid" - rubbish. No amount of money will buy hard work and dedication. I never left my books til I was 18, and was in college before I started going out properly. The private school stick is frequently used to beat those who simply want to work to get ahead.

sarumite

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I personally think you overstate this a problem quite a lot. The problem with Ireland is not that we don't teach a modern European language but that we as a nation speak English. It is very difficult to find another European who speaks a second language other than English.

As an English speaker who did German at school I never ever got to use my German and have since lost it completely. Despite working with other Germans we spoke English as invariably there was another French or Swedish etc person in the room . The time spent learning German has been no more beneficial than the time spent learning Irish. My story is far from unique, nor is it specific to English speaking countries. Ask a German who learned French at school to speak it 5-10 years after leaving school and they can happily explain in English why they can't or don't speak it. It is also recognized that the second language you learn is not as important as the process of learning a second language, a process every Irish child goes through at primary school while learning Irish.

RMD

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I went private also and although there were some snobs in my class, my family were certainly not snobby. My parents did without to send me there. My Dad spent the best years of his life lugging rolls of lead up and down ladders and fixing roofs so that his family could have a good education. My parents don't spend money on smoking and drinking. I used to get so angry with people telling me that I "only did welll in school because my parents paid" - rubbish. No amount of money will buy hard work and dedication. I never left my books til I was 18, and was in college before I started going out properly. The private school stick is frequently used to beat those who simply want to work to get ahead.

The reason I was sent to a private school is quite simple. My dad went to an awful inner-city school where he was surrounded by drop-outs, criminals and a handful of those who actually wanted to succeed as he summarized it. He worked his ass off to get where he is in life, to a point where he can afford private education for his children. He sent me to a private school so I had the greatest level of opportunity available to me and the greatest chance of "success", while I'd be surrounded by an environment built on hard work and ambition rather than a half-assed lifestyle.

He worked bloody hard to get me there and provide me with the education I got, as a result I'm going to work bloody hard now to show the dividends and ensure my children receive the same opportunity I did.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JustinDee

creedp wrote: »

The only reason Fiacra and Ophelia go to private /semi-private schools is becasue their parents want them to get ahead of those kids who have public only education. Its the same reason why people have private health insurance, i.e. to get ahead of a public only patient irrespective of whether the public patinet is more in need of the service. Nothing wrong with that in itself .. the law of the jungle says so ... but the Q is whether the taxpayer should subsidise Fiacra and Ophelia's preferential status? As usual when this is questioned the bregrudery card is played. Its funny how when people question an advantage received by persons, who normally are in the higher socio-economic categories, this is automatically begrudgery in tihs country. What the State needs to do is provide a quality public education service that all have equal access to. If people want to go outside this publicly funded system to gain an advantage that's no problem but they should pay for this advantage. IMO, its begrudgery that people who receive this advantage should complain when the subsidisation of advantage is questioned.

Its not a begrudgery 'card'.
The example Irish school (gaelscoil) in question is a publicly funded school.
Begrudging people who manage to put their kids in a better position than oneself is not exclusively Irish. Never claimed it was. Its just typical in Ireland.

If a school teaches certain subject, they receive grants. If a school runs certain programmes it receives grants. Thats how it works. If they charge for students to enrol on top of that, then so be it.
Parents save to send their kids to fee-paying schools and those schools as educational facilities are as entitled to assistance as any other.

sarumite

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It also states that two thirds choose English as their second language. You are treating the second language as if all things are equal, when in fact they are not. English has become the international bridge language. It is the de facto language for science, engingeering, finance, technology. There are inherent advantages to learning English that do not exist for any other language, thus when it comes to choosing a second language English speakers are at a disadvantage as the obvious choice is their mothertongue

For you, maybe. But I don't accept that your case is generalizable.

I actually disagree. Unless you are using a language regularly, you do not maintain it. In most European countries (perhaps all?) the most common language outside of their mothertongue(s) will be English.

Every Irish child learns Irish? In fact, Irish children master a "cupla focail" that can be used to pass exams, but only a tiny minority ever attain anything close to fluency in the language.

The problem as you describe above isn't the language but the curricula. The inherent value in learning a second language isn't diminished because that second language is thought poorly.

On edit: Languages are strong amongst students (as in the eurostat study), however as I said ask a person 5-10 years afterwards and its a different story. From my time living in Sweden it was common for Swedes to say they speak German as well as English only to find their German as poor as mine. From my experience many tended to overstate their proficiency at other languages.

Icepick

Socialist economic ideas are usually just stupid but this one is outright insane.

KyussBishop

JustinDee wrote: »

Its not a begrudgery 'card'.
The example Irish school (gaelscoil) in question is a publicly funded school.
Begrudging people who manage to put their kids in a better position than oneself is not exclusively Irish. Never claimed it was. Its just typical in Ireland.

If a school teaches certain subject, they receive grants. If a school runs certain programmes it receives grants. Thats how it works. If they charge for students to enrol on top of that, then so be it.
Parents save to send their kids to fee-paying schools and those schools as educational facilities are as entitled to assistance as any other.

If a school accepts any public payment, it should at least not have the right to discriminate in what students can be enrolled, and the state should have justification in applying other restrictions; outside of problems like in the UK, I don't see an immediate reason to oppose fees or donations though, for private schools that choose that.

Icepick wrote:

Socialist economic ideas are usually just stupid but this one is outright insane.

If you're going to make a post, at least read the thread and reply to points made, instead of making a lazy post bashing non-existent 'socialists'; adds pretty much nothing to the thread.

Same goes with other posts making false analogies in comparison to the OP, e.g. comparing to begrudgery against people who own expensive cars, or other stupid stuff like that; analogies like that, completely ignoring the content of most of the posts, are just a lazy means of bashing non-aligning viewpoints, rather than engaging in the actual content of the arguments.

JustinDee

KyussBishop wrote: »

If a school accepts any public payment, it should at least not have the right to discriminate in what students can be enrolled, and the state should have justification in applying other restrictions; outside of problems like in the UK, I don't see an immediate reason to oppose fees or donations though, for private schools that choose that

Parents have the right to send their kids to whatever school of whichever ethos or background they wish. Secular, Church of Ireland, Roman Catholic, Jewish . . . it doesn't matter. Any facility teaching governmental curricular studies qualifies for government assistance. Anything extra on top of that, is up to the school themselves.

OldNotWIse

creedp wrote: »

The only reason Fiacra and Ophelia go to private /semi-private schools is becasue their parents want them to get ahead of those kids who have public only education. Its the same reason why people have private health insurance, i.e. to get ahead of a public only patient irrespective of whether the public patinet is more in need of the service. Nothing wrong with that in itself .. the law of the jungle says so ... but the Q is whether the taxpayer should subsidise Fiacra and Ophelia's preferential status? As usual when this is questioned the bregrudery card is played. Its funny how when people question an advantage received by persons, who normally are in the higher socio-economic categories, this is automatically begrudgery in tihs country. What the State needs to do is provide a quality public education service that all have equal access to. If people want to go outside this publicly funded system to gain an advantage that's no problem but they should pay for this advantage. IMO, its begrudgery that people who receive this advantage should complain when the subsidisation of advantage is questioned.

They do.

Enough of the jaded victim mentality. Plenty of people in public schools have parents with much more disposable income than their private school counterparts (I can think of many I know off the top of my head)

I said before and I will say again, I worked damn hard for my 6 years at second level, and I will not have my achievements and hard work attributed solely to the fact that my father laboured for 50 years to support his family, and both parents refrained from drinking, smoking, changing the car every year, adding ridiculous extensions and conservatories onto their house and foreign holidays - things which I am sure plenty of people who sent their kids to public schools did.

I went to school with one girl (primary school) whose mother then sent her to the local community college - god love her you say, well she had no problem spending thousands of euro per year forcing her children to go to ballroom dancing classes and forking out every other week for fake tan, glitzy dresses, silver dancing shoes (not to mention pulling them out of school for competitions on a regular basis). She certainly had much more disposable income than my parents - but she made a choice not to spend it on her kid's education.

RubyRoss

I would defend the right of people to send their children to private school but many people here seem to think that in exercising that right they are morally superior to those who don’t.

It’s the common trend of this tread: parents of private school children are hard-working and concerned because they are helping their children ‘get ahead’ while the rest of us are negligent parents letting children languish in state schools.

This impression that state schools are black holes of learning is utterly gross: Look at the Young Scientist winners and you will find a predominance of state schools including Blarney Community College & Synge Street CBS – in yes, the inner city.

Education is about a learning environment – it is not a monopoly of the wealthy – the teachers in private education went to the same state universities as those working in state schools. Brains are brains whether possessed by a wealthy or poor child and a good science teacher is a good science teacher whether in a state or private school.

Like the OP, I think it reasonable to ask how can we improve schools across the country (though I disagree with a proposal to restrict private school):
Those who dismiss state education outright have little to say that is constructive – and they are anti-education in every sense of the word.

OldNotWise: ‘God help’ the girl that went to a community college, you say. Will God also save us from your snobbish ignorance?

RMD

RubyRoss wrote: »

OldNotWise: ‘God help’ the girl that went to a community college, you say. Will God also save us from your snobbish ignorance?

There was no ignorance on his behalf. It was a pretty decent example of how his parents decided to put their own income into their child's education while another set of parents decided to put it into a hobby. Yet it's more than likely out of the 2 sets if parents OldNotWise's would be considered the snobbier set of the 2 due to their priorities.

Suryavarman

RubyRoss wrote: »

Like the OP, I think it reasonable to ask how can we improve schools across the country (though I disagree with a proposal to restrict private school):
Those who dismiss state education outright have little to say that is constructive – and they are anti-education in every sense of the word.?

How on Earth is somebody that dismisses state education outright anti-education?

OldNotWIse

RubyRoss wrote: »

I would defend the right of people to send their children to private school but many people here seem to think that in exercising that right they are morally superior to those who don’t.

It’s the common trend of this tread: parents of private school children are hard-working and concerned because they are helping their children ‘get ahead’ while the rest of us are negligent parents letting children languish in state schools.

This impression that state schools are black holes of learning is utterly gross: Look at the Young Scientist winners and you will find a predominance of state schools including Blarney Community College & Synge Street CBS – in yes, the inner city.

Education is about a learning environment – it is not a monopoly of the wealthy – the teachers in private education went to the same state universities as those working in state schools. Brains are brains whether possessed by a wealthy or poor child and a good science teacher is a good science teacher whether in a state or private school.

Like the OP, I think it reasonable to ask how can we improve schools across the country (though I disagree with a proposal to restrict private school):
Those who dismiss state education outright have little to say that is constructive – and they are anti-education in every sense of the word.

OldNotWise: ‘God help’ the girl that went to a community college, you say. Will God also save us from your snobbish ignorance?

Snobbish ignorance? Really? You have to resort to insults to substantiate your views? I would have thought it was quite obvious that the "god help her" (which was an example of what other bleeding hearts on this thread would say) was simply an illustration of the hysterical attitude towards public schools that seems to be dominating this thread. You'd swear it was a choice between private and ghetto the way some people are going on here.

OldNotWIse

RMD wrote: »

There was no ignorance on his behalf. It was a pretty decent example of how his parents decided to put their own income into their child's education while another set of parents decided to put it into a hobby. Yet it's more than likely out of the 2 sets if parents OldNotWise's would be considered the snobbier set of the 2 due to their priorities.

Finally some sense. Seems you cannot say anything here without being lit upon. I personally do not see anything wrong with public schools (community or otherwise) and some posts on other threads from me actually document how unhappy I was in my second level school BECAUSE of the bitchiness and snobbiness of some of the girls in my class. There seems to be some misconception here that anyone whose parents made sacrifices to give them a better education was some kind of Mallory Towers type ponsing around with hockey sticks and horses.

KyussBishop

JustinDee wrote: »

Parents have the right to send their kids to whatever school of whichever ethos or background they wish. Secular, Church of Ireland, Roman Catholic, Jewish . . . it doesn't matter. Any facility teaching governmental curricular studies qualifies for government assistance. Anything extra on top of that, is up to the school themselves.

I didn't contest any of that, I said any school accepting any amount of public funding, should not be free to discriminate on what students they enroll, and extra government restrictions on them can be justified through the public funding.

melekalikimaka

creedp wrote: »

The only reason Fiacra and Ophelia go to private /semi-private schools is becasue their parents want them to get ahead of those kids who have public only education. Its the same reason why people have private health insurance, i.e. to get ahead of a public only patient irrespective of whether the public patinet is more in need of the service. Nothing wrong with that in itself .. the law of the jungle says so ... but the Q is whether the taxpayer should subsidise Fiacra and Ophelia's preferential status? As usual when this is questioned the bregrudery card is played. Its funny how when people question an advantage received by persons, who normally are in the higher socio-economic categories, this is automatically begrudgery in tihs country. What the State needs to do is provide a quality public education service that all have equal access to. If people want to go outside this publicly funded system to gain an advantage that's no problem but they should pay for this advantage. IMO, its begrudgery that people who receive this advantage should complain when the subsidisation of advantage is questioned.

utter rubbish, maybe a small minority, I went to at the time the most expensive day school in the country, and the reason I went wasnt to get ahead of the curve, it was because the public school I was in was an utter disgrace of an institution,l and the public schools around me also had terrible reputations, and my parents decided to send me to a school that had a better reputation in the hopes that I would get a better education, I became a better student, tho basing that on new school is debatable. Its sometimes an alternative to a terrible standard some public schools have. Your elitist spew stinks of spite and begrudgery IMO

OldNotWIse

RubyRoss wrote: »

This impression that state schools are black holes of learning is utterly gross: Look at the Young Scientist winners and you will find a predominance of state schools including Blarney Community College & Synge Street CBS – in yes, the inner city.

Education is about a learning environment – it is not a monopoly of the wealthy – the teachers in private education went to the same state universities as those working in state schools. Brains are brains whether possessed by a wealthy or poor child and a good science teacher is a good science teacher whether in a state or private school.

So why the big deal if someone decides to go private? By your own admission, it does not necessarily make a difference...

JustinDee

KyussBishop wrote: »

I didn't contest any of that, I said any school accepting any amount of public funding, should not be free to discriminate on what students they enroll, and extra government restrictions on them can be justified through the public funding.

Yes you did, then did it again.
As a curriculum conduit, the institutions I gave an example of are equally entitled to government funding.

creedp

melekalikimaka wrote: »

Your elitist spew stinks of spite and begrudgery IMO

Wow!! That's some leap ... I didn't mean to touch a raw nerve! I'm not in any way spiteful. Whose being elitist and spewing bile here? All I'm saying that students who go to private schools in the main come from higher socio-economic groups and attending a private school helps to maintain this. Q is what level of Govt support should this attract. You can jump up and down and throw a hissy fit all you want but its a valid point and is the subject of continuous debate. I suppose if it is the case that in the main that students who attend private schools don't disproportionally end up in top/influential positons in society then there is no issue to debate. But if it is the case that they do and the reason why is they attended exclusive schools then there is a point to debate. In the same way if a private patient in a public hospital gets treated ahead of a public patient who is equally or more in need of the service, is there a question to debate? You probably don't think so and instead consider me an spewing stinking elitism!

KyussBishop

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes you did, then did it again.
As a curriculum conduit, the institutions I gave an example of are equally entitled to government funding.

It's not obvious to me what I contradicted there; are you saying private schools receiving public funding should be allowed to discriminate in what students they allow to enroll?

I don't think any school accepting public funding should be allowed to do that; schools which are 100% privately funded are another matter.

Icepick

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you're going to make a post, at least read the thread and reply to points made, instead of making a lazy post bashing non-existent 'socialists'; adds pretty much nothing to the thread.

Competition brings the best results. And choice is a basic human right.

KyussBishop

Okey, well that adds an argument to the thread:
I don't actually oppose private schools in Ireland, despite the argument put forward in my OP; the problems private education produces in the UK do not appear to occur here, so there is no need for the speculated changes.

As for competition bringing best results; there isn't really evidence of that in the case of education here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1541

Choice is a very ambiguous thing here as well; you could switch the entire education system over to private tomorrow, and people would have unlimited 'choice' in one regard, but in reality they would only have as much choice as their monetary means provide, and what schools would accept them (where publicly funded schools should not be allowed to discriminate).

On a basic level, taxes by government remove your choice in what you could do with some of your money, in order to run government and society; if you privatize everything and remove all/most taxes, we end up in a society that is far less desirable to live in, as that entails extensive (non-monetary) social costs.

There's no panacea of choice in the end, you just replace one set of choices (that defined by government) with another (that defined by corporations/business).

Icepick

KyussBishop wrote: »

with another (that defined by corporations/business).

nonsense
That second choice is defined by consumers.

KyussBishop

Consumers only have as much choice as business makes available to them, and business only makes available choice as is in line with profits.

For instance in a public school system, students with disabilities that are more expensive to teach and who will have less academic performance, should not be discriminated against and should have a choice of schools within their locality (and beyond depending upon enrollment demand).

In a private system, those students would not necessarily have that choice as private schools would be free to reject such students on grounds that they are more expensive to teach and/or that they would bring down the average academic ratings for the school; such 'creaming off' of students happens and is a factor in determining the performance of private schools.


In a public system, your level of choice should ideally be limited to the enrollment demands for a particular school you desire (so long as it is public), whereas in a 100% private system your level of choice is limited by your parents income, and the prejudices of the school administration.

Surely those advocating a maximization of choice, would advocate a mixed public/private system?


In general, those that advocate 100% privatization of any existing public services on grounds of a purity/panacea of choice, are really just advocating for one set of choices over another, where the list of choices in a 100% privatized world is actually for many people a lot less than in a government funded system.

Typically it is those with the least amount of money who lose the greatest amount of 'choice' in such a switchover, whilst those with increasing amounts of money gain progressively more choice.

So far in discussions on these forums, those advocating 100% privatization seem to ignore the effects that would have on people at the bottom who can not afford that; it elicits a very conspicuous silence to be honest, which makes me think it's viewed as an acceptable outcome.

Belfast

I think in practice if private schools were closed or banned. Wealth parents would send their children abroad to private schools.
This would give the wealthy even less interest in supporting public schools.

The points system was meant to increase social mobility and have more people form working classes going to university.
I do not think it made any real different.

Monty Burnz

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

On a slightly tangential point, it's astonishing that such an unambiguously important and socially beneficial role is so appallingly remunerated. What would you earn on minimum wage in the US these days?

Belfast

Federal $7.25 per hour


some states have higher minimum wages.
Washington $9.04
Vermont $8.46
Nevada $8.25
Massachusetts $8.00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#Earlier_U.S._minimum_wages_laws

ASVM

What I think the education system should be doing in Ireland is reducing class size.Some classes in Ireland can contain thirty or more students.Why don't we try to bring down class size?

.If we had smaller class sizes maybe there wouldn't be a need for private education.As I see it the state system is pretty good and the only difference between public and semi private schools is that semi private schools may have better facilities then private ones such as swimming pools.Teachers are paid the same salary so in theory their is no gain for a teacher to go and work in a private school.Student's follow the same curriculum ( with the exception of one I think in Dublin which follows the IB)

We shouldn't ( in my opinion) have this divide between public and private schools.They do this in the UK and the consequences are terrible .We definitely don't want to go down that road( well I don't anyway).It promotes an ' I am better then you mentality' and that isn't good for our society( in my opinion)

hyperborean

KyussBishop wrote: »

Read an article with an interesting viewpoint towards private education (mainly in UK) today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/10/michael-gove-private-school-social-justice

Basically, the author supports the shutting down of private schools, which would force wealthy parents to send their kids to public schools rather than being able to send them to private schools, thus preventing the societal segregation and imbalance in educational opportunities that creates.

If those parents are unhappy with the public education system, they (who are more likely to have better political connections due to wealth) would have to fight for reform of the system for everyone, and it would go some way to balancing educational opportunities between the rich and the rest of the population.

Note that, as a practical matter, this would not mean shutting down semi-private schools, presumably just forcibly bringing private schools under the same umbrella of obligations as semi-private (and perhaps hoisting additional restrictions on semi-private schools).


It's an interesting idea; I'm not a big fan of public schools in their current form, as there are a lot of problems with the system at various levels, so I'm not sold on the idea of shutting down private schools.
The idea of it though, is that there would be a greater impetus to reform and improve the public system, and thus those problems would (hopefully) get resolved faster.

It seems also that the state already pays the salaries of private school teachers, forking over €100 million a year to private schools, so forcing them into a semi-private role and compensating the additional expenditure on that with higher taxes on the rich, seems a fair alternative (where it seems quite unfair that the population is subsidizing more exclusive education in fee paying schools right now).

It would be interesting to hear a discussion on the wider benefits/pitfalls of this; it seems clear that private schools automatically create a certain level of social segregation and an imbalance in opportunities, so it provides benefits there, but what are the general pitfalls of the idea, and is the cost upon the small percentage of the population affected by those pitfalls, worth the benefits to wider society?

They wont admit it but the rich dont want their children mixing with the poor, you see the fact of the matter is that during the formative years of which school is a major part environmental factors play a role in how a child develops.

Rich people generally think of poor people as problem ridden malcontents,

They do not want the poor folks children having any influence on little tarquin and who is to say they should have to?

If I spend 70 hours a week busting my balls earning so the little one doesnt have to associated with scratcher signing frano or sharons chizlers then I should be allowed to do, thats my right, being forced to do this is as bad as the inequality that the author thinks private schools achieve.

ASVM

hyperborean wrote: »

They wont admit it but the rich dont want their children mixing with the poor, you see the fact of the matter is that during the formative years of which school is a major part environmental factors play a role in how a child develops.

Rich people generally think of poor people as problem ridden malcontents,

They do not want the poor folks children having any influence on little tarquin and who is to say they should have to?

If I spend 70 hours a week busting my balls earning so the little one doesnt have to associated with scratcher signing frano or sharons chizlers then I should be allowed to do, thats my right, being forced to do this is as bad as the inequality that the author thinks private schools achieve.

Yes that's true that is your right.

KyussBishop

hyperborean wrote: »

They wont admit it but the rich dont want their children mixing with the poor, you see the fact of the matter is that during the formative years of which school is a major part environmental factors play a role in how a child develops.

Rich people generally think of poor people as problem ridden malcontents,

They do not want the poor folks children having any influence on little tarquin and who is to say they should have to?

If I spend 70 hours a week busting my balls earning so the little one doesnt have to associated with scratcher signing frano or sharons chizlers then I should be allowed to do, thats my right, being forced to do this is as bad as the inequality that the author thinks private schools achieve.

Yes that's pretty much the view the thread came around to after a short while; I think much of the rest of the thread became a debate over all private vs mixed public/private.

hyperborean

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes that's pretty much the view the thread came around to after a short while; I think much of the rest of the thread became a debate over all private vs mixed public/private.

As an aside, will/would you put your children in a private school? (money permitting)

Personally I am thinking very hard about it, the recently published data (The indo, cant find a link)on schools with information on post leaving cert attendance to third level with college breakdown had my local second level on 63% overall attendance and very few Uni.

Were as the closest Fee paying had 100% third level with nearly a 1/4 being uni....

For the €30K I would probably have to spend its a bargain I think,

Love is a awefull thing for a socialist...

KyussBishop

If I had kids, would probably do home schooling and avoid both All depends on the school really; if you can afford it and the school is better, you'd just be seeking the best for your kids; if all-private schools were taking over in society though, that'd start having more generalized negative socioeconomic effects.

swimming in a sea

maybe someone can confirm this, don't a lot of private schools function on a lot less revenue(private&public funds) than most public only schools.

So I think state schools need to have more power to run their schools, expelling trouble makers, stop interfering from the RC church.

KyussBishop

I'm not sure about revenue, I don't think so offhand; one thing you need to consider with private schools, is they can (as far as I know) discriminate more who they take on (whether that be through direct judgment or socioeconomically through size of fees), and this can lead to 'creaming off' easier to teach students, who aren't from troublesome socioeconomic backgrounds (poor areas with crime problems, where a greater percentage of students may bring problems into the school), or who don't have disabilities of one kind or another.