Private education unfair?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well we can stop schools accepting fees. If you're theory is right ut shouldn't make any difference.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote:

Well we can stop schools accepting fees. If you're theory is right ut shouldn't make any difference.

Yeah to be fair you can't take stats like those at face value. Better educated parents are likely to put greater value on education. They are also likely to earn more money over a lifetime which means they have more resources to dedicate to their own children's education, live in areas with people who value education and areas with better schools. Far too many confounding variables to draw conclusions.

looksee

Everyone who pays tax is paying towards the education system. All children are required and entitled to have an education. If parents, having paid tax and thus paid for their child's education (as well as that of children of parents who pay less or no tax) choose to spend some of their remaining income on upgrading their children's education, that is their own business.

In the same way they may choose to pay for private hospitals, holidays, a large house, drink, gambling, or a myriad other ways of disposing of their income.

Carlos Orange

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Schools run by the church are hardly public schools.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dubl07

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Why should they? when the state provide perfectly good state schools?
parents make the choice of a private school, therefore they should have to bear the full cost

They're adequate. That's about the height of it in Ireland's state schools unless your kid is exceptional and/or has an exceptional state school with outstanding teachers.

Discretionary income for some parents gets spent on clothes, cigarettes, alcohol and/or holidays. For other parents on the same level of pay it can seem worthwhile forgo all those expenses to fund what they perceive to be an enhanced education. One that gives the offspring a wider range of subjects, extracurricular activities etc. That does not and should not mean that the child should be denied the basic funding that all children of the state are entitled to.

Carlos Orange

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

People might think that but if the church subsidises schools under church patronage (which I presume it does) then the exact same arguments apply.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

the_syco

AFAIK, public and private teachers get paid by the government.

One key difference is that if the father is paying the private school tonnes of cash, their kid can get away with hell. In a non-private school where the father is not paying tonnes of cash, the kid gets suspended for being a prat.

Thus the chance of how well you get to absorb the info can be determined by how rich the prats father is. And no, the teacher cannot discipline the prat, as they'd get sacked for risking the loss of the funds that the school is getting.

On the other hand, small class sizes can mean the students get more teacher time, and thus able to understand the education better than a public school class that could be over the max amount of children to teacher ratio.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well there's lots of bs laws that we have done away with. We allowed gay people to marry for instance. The fact that it's in the constitution doesn't mean it won't be effective.

steddyeddy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah to be fair you can't take stats like those at face value. Better educated parents are likely to put greater value on education. They are also likely to earn more money over a lifetime which means they have more resources to dedicate to their own children's education, live in areas with people who value education and areas with better schools. Far too many confounding variables to draw conclusions.

I'm stating a point much ignored in this debate. People say the parents are the primary driving factor. Fine then private schools shouldn't matter and the same students would come out on top. That's not something I believe by the way.

Why is everyone on about saving the state money, the issue is solely about the state giving money so that already affluent folks (in the main) can give their kids an advantage. Let's face it, smaller class sizes, cherry picked enrollment, better facilities etc gives these kids a leg up vs general schooling. Why is the state subsidising this aspect?

I went to a school that had private and public pupils

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Carlos Orange

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What is the difference between a parent paying a fee, a parent tithing to a church and part of that money being passed on to a school and a church passing money on to a school that it has from non parental sources. In all cases the school has resources provided by a mixture of public and private sources and the state is subsidising the private school (according to the argument). If the church isn't (and hasn't been) subsidising schools directly or indirectly that is different.

ted1

the_syco wrote: »

AFAIK, public and private teachers get paid by the government.

One key difference is that if the father is paying the private school tonnes of cash, their kid can get away with hell. In a non-private school where the father is not paying tonnes of cash, the kid gets suspended for being a prat.

Thus the chance of how well you get to absorb the info can be determined by how rich the prats father is. And no, the teacher cannot discipline the prat, as they'd get sacked for risking the loss of the funds that the school is getting.

On the other hand, small class sizes can mean the students get more teacher time, and thus able to understand the education better than a public school class that could be over the max amount of children to teacher ratio.

Your wrong, private schools suspend students as well.

Some teachers in private schools get paid, they use the same ratio if X pupils per teacher. The fees paid allow the school to employ teachers directly and thus reduce class sizes , provide additional subjects and provide better resource teaching for special needs

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote:

I'm stating a point much ignored in this debate. People say the parents are the primary driving factor. Fine then private schools shouldn't matter and the same students would come out on top. That's not something I believe by the way.

I think parents are an important factor. They push the school, school pushes children, children get better than average results, results attract better teachers and demand outweighs supply and the school gets to pick it's students/parents.

Private schools concentrate the parents who push the school and the children. I don't know if it's the primary factor but it's an important one.

nice_guy80

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My argument was never about the cost to the state
The main point, is that state subsidising of private education is UNFAIR

If the parents want to pay for a separate, private education they should pay the full cost.

nice_guy80

seamus wrote: »

It does, but it just doesn't provide enough of them.

Increase the capacity of the public system by 26,000 pupils.

Then we can talk about removing funding from private schools.

The state would do, if mammy and daddy weren't sending them to the private elite schools

And there isn't an ounce of begrudgery here

Not able to make a valid point? Then call someone a name.

nice_guy80

Dubl07 wrote: »

They're adequate. That's about the height of it in Ireland's state schools unless your kid is exceptional and/or has an exceptional state school with outstanding teachers.

Discretionary income for some parents gets spent on clothes, cigarettes, alcohol and/or holidays. For other parents on the same level of pay it can seem worthwhile forgo all those expenses to fund what they perceive to be an enhanced education. One that gives the offspring a wider range of subjects, extracurricular activities etc. That does not and should not mean that the child should be denied the basic funding that all children of the state are entitled to.

Biggest determining factor for a child's success is their parents
And whether they give a shít or not

ted1

nice_guy80 wrote: »

The state would do, if mammy and daddy weren't sending them to the private elite schools

And there isn't an ounce of begrudgery here

Not able to make a valid point? Then call someone a name.

You havnt giving a valid reason yet and the language you use "private elite " screams begrudary.

seamus

nice_guy80 wrote: »

The state would do, if mammy and daddy weren't sending them to the private elite schools

No, if mammy and daddy were sending them to state schools the system would collapse under the strain because the resources aren't there at present to cope.

You can't put the cart before the horse - private schools aren't taking resources away from the public education system, they're actually subsidising it.

And there isn't an ounce of begrudgery here

Not able to make a valid point? Then call someone a name.

I'm guessing that wasn't aimed at me since I never mentioned begrudgery. Though I do find it hilarious the amount of people who seem to imagine the English public schools when they think about the Irish private schools.

Like I say, the number of private schools in Ireland which operate on a basis of elitism and snobbery is in the single figures. I could name them all given ten minutes to think about it.

The rest of them are just parents trying to get a decent education for their kids.

steddyeddy

ted1 wrote: »

You havnt giving a valid reason yet and the language you use "private elite " screams begrudary.

Well to be fair Ted1 a lot of people are going to resent the difference in schooling. Several if not most of th e students I teach have mentioned it.

Take two bright students. Both hard working yet one comes from a relatively poor family and the other a relatively rich family. Let's call the poorer child john. John's mother is a cleaner and his father is sick. They didn't get a good education because their parents weren't born into a well off family. Therefore they haven't got good job and can't afford private school for their son.

Then you have Michael. Thick as pig sh1t and went to Gonzaga college which literally drilled information into him. Micheal's lack of intelligence isn't an exaggeration in the slightest by the way.

How do you think that the poorer, more interested and brighter student feels that the richer student got a far better education because he was born into a luckier situation.

It isn't begrudgery because lets face facts it's completely unearned by the student. Also as we see here it tends to confer a chip on the shoulder of some who suggest those who can't afford private school are doing something wrong (smoking drinking).

steddyeddy

On the issue of scrapping the government aid towards private schools I don't see a problem.

There's a lot of hard working parents who can't afford it for their children or some of their children. Why is it bad that some more can't afford it?

seamus

steddyeddy wrote: »

On the issue of scrapping the government aid towards private schools I don't see a problem.

There's a lot of hard working parents who can't afford it for their children or some of their children. Why is it bad that some more can't afford it?

I don't believe I'm breaching the charter here, and I'm not being glib, but ultimately we seem to be stuck in a loop here that reminds me exactly of this:



Removing assistance to private schools and you might claim you have a "fairer" system, but ultimately everyone will have to pay more in taxes.

Ask the parents who can't afford private school if they would like to pay more taxes just so that other kids can't go to private schools. Apart from a tiny cohort of begrudgers, nobody would say yes.

Zubeneschamali

seamus wrote: »

The rest of them are just parents trying to get a decent education for their kids.

Yes, and this is what is wrong with the system. Free secondary school education is a right in this country. Everyone is supposed to get it. Instead, we have a two tier system where those who can afford it get a decent education, and those who can't make do.

I am not saying anyone is a bad person or a snob or begrudging the money they have to spend on education, I'm saying we should fix the system.

Finland, bizarrely cited by Permabear earlier although it is the exact opposite of the model he wants to see, would be a good model for us.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Finland, bizarrely cited by Permabear earlier although it is the exact opposite of the model he wants to see, would be a good model for us.

I think a lot of people just want their children to have a good education regardless of whether the provider is the state or the private sector.

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote:

Then you have Michael. Thick as pig sh1t and went to Gonzaga college which literally drilled information into him. Micheal's lack of intelligence isn't an exaggeration in the slightest by the way.

Ok so Michael is literally as thick as pig **** (lovely way to describe your charges BTW) and Gonzaga have pounded knowledge into him and brought him up to third level education. And you have a problem with this achievement of Gonzaga and Michael and his parents because...?

You're an educator right? Thought you might appreciate the job done by another institute of education.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well to be fair Ted1 a lot of people are going to resent the difference in schooling. Several if not most of th e students I teach have mentioned it.

Take two bright students. Both hard working yet one comes from a relatively poor family and the other a relatively rich family. Let's call the poorer child john. John's mother is a cleaner and his father is sick. They didn't get a good education because their parents weren't born into a well off family. Therefore they haven't got good job and can't afford private school for their son.

Then you have Michael. Thick as pig sh1t and went to Gonzaga college which literally drilled information into him. Micheal's lack of intelligence isn't an exaggeration in the slightest by the way.

How do you think that the poorer, more interested and brighter student feels that the richer student got a far better education because he was born into a luckier situation.

It isn't begrudgery because lets face facts it's completely unearned by the student. Also as we see here it tends to confer a chip on the shoulder of some who suggest those who can't afford private school are doing something wrong (smoking drinking).

Why can't the public school 'literally drill information into' I]sic[/I the less well off student there? Is there something stopping them from doing this?

steddyeddy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok so Michael is literally as thick as pig **** (lovely way to describe your charges BTW) and Gonzaga have pounded knowledge into him and brought him up to third level education. And you have a problem with this achievement of Gonzaga and Michael and his parents because...?

You're an educator right? Thought you might appreciate the job done by another institute of education.

Well primarily research but my PhD did entail some teaching responsibilities.

Yes I admire the fact they could push a weaker student through. In fact I think all schools should be like that.

The problem I have is with the system as a whole. The huge variable in school quality doesn't give us an accurate reflection of the truly bright. We have many students who are far more intelligent than Micheal come in as mature students or through the HEAR programme.

We should only have the best students at third level IMHO.

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

Why can't the public school 'literally drill information into' I]sic[/I the less well off student there? Is there something stopping them from doing this?

The problem with the public schools (some more than others) is multi factorial.

Some schools don't offer higher level in some subjects. A lot of the teachers don't aim to get the students onto third level. There is also a myth perpetrated by some who want to justify the lack of third level students from certain areas "they don't want to go to college". I work with them everyday and this myth is the realm of a bigot.

Why wouldn't someone from a lower socio economic area like to learn, be interested in science or literature. Another more blatant issue is they have less money. They don't attract the best teachers.

For those of the private school side of the argument that state school makes little difference point your attention to Belvedere college. They take in people from very disadvantaged backgrounds and sometimes foster homes. Can you hazard a guess at what going to Belvedere does to their performance?

That doesn't answer my question.

I'm asking what the state school cannot do that the private school can.

Attracting the best teachers could well be one of the factors!

What other factors are there that a state school cannot do?

Instead of destroying the comparative advantage (by removing private schooling altogether) why can't we look to copy/follow/implement the ideals that foster that comparative advantage (thereby reducing it through our own doing, instead of requiring external interference)? Surely that's more beneficial to all!

A suggestion can then come such as 'State schools would see better results with better teachers, lets try and see how we can attract better teachers (salary / benefits / other)'.

ancapailldorcha

Speaking anecdotally here but I was constantly ridiculed in school for wanting to sit in a break times reading books. Fast forward onto secondary school where people talked about getting arts degrees as a pretense for going to Galway and partying (no offence intended to arts graduates here btw). I knew that I wanted to do science from the outset and that pursuing that career required going to University so I worked hard while most of the people I knew were out drinking. A lot of people just don't have an interest. Of course some do and such aspirations should be both encourage and supported but the chances are that if someone comes from a low income background then their parents will be less likely to support any sort of high ambition.

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

I don't believe I'm breaching the charter here, and I'm not being glib, but ultimately we seem to be stuck in a loop here that reminds me exactly of this:




Removing assistance to private schools and you might claim you have a "fairer" system, but ultimately everyone will have to pay more in taxes.

Ask the parents who can't afford private school if they would like to pay more taxes just so that other kids can't go to private schools. Apart from a tiny cohort of begrudgers, nobody would say yes.

Begrudgers, left wing, liberal ect. For the record I think they're indicative of the inability to form a cogent argument.

Now let's deal with the parents. Your parents, my parents his parents, her parents are all irrelevant.

It's the individual receiving the education and benefiting from it. I can't in a thousand years agree that the tax a person's parent pays should contribute to a system in which there is a large disparity between the education the children of a state receive.

Try asking kids from low income areas who are really interested in education do they think a child who already has a head start in life should get an unearned advantage and go to a far better school?

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

OK, so Finland has no social benefit from having one of the best education systems in the world? Seriously?

Many public schools do well in the league system, as do Gael scoils and educate together schools. Private schools do not have a monopoly on good schools.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm asking what the state school cannot do that the private school can.

1) Charge fees and pay for extra staff, tuition, and sports/extra-curricular activities.

2) Keep out the children of asylum seekers, itinerants and the criminal classes (except the white collar kind), who soak up a lot of resources in the state schools teaching remedial English and dealing with intractable discipline issues.

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote:

We should only have the best students at third level IMHO.

And reducing funding from the private schools will achieve that? It might achieve parity where everyone is less well educated but surely that's not preferable

It's all well and good to talk about how the government should do more fir education, in the meantime parents who value education are dead right to try and get the best education for their children

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

1) Charge fees and pay for extra staff, tuition, and sports/extra-curricular activities.

The charging fees thing is implied. What extra stuff is there that requires additional payment that can be shown to result in an improved education? That's what I'm getting at.

If there's evidence that the 'extra stuff' provides a better education, then we should be campaigning for that 'extra stuff' to be paid for in state schools too. Immediately. It shouldn't be 'extra stuff', it should become the standard!

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

2) Keep out the children of asylum seekers, itinerants and the criminal classes (except the white collar kind), who soak up a lot of resources in the state schools teaching remedial English and dealing with intractable discipline issues.

I don't have an answer with what to do with problem students tbh. There are no easy answers at all. However, if the comparative advantage is just that 'private schools don't have them', then a logical takeout (heartless and wrong of course!) would be that it would also be an advantage for state schools to not take them either.

Do we then move to a three tier system in order to reduce this comparative advantage?

steddyeddy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And reducing funding from the private schools will achieve that? It might achieve parity where everyone is less well educated but surely that's not preferable

It's all well and good to talk about how the government should do more fir education, in the meantime parents who value education are dead right to try and get the best education for their children

You're making that mistake again. It's not the parents we should be focusing on. We should be focusing on the children who value education. A parent might value education but that doesn't mean their child will and vice versa.

K-9

Indeed, the state put huge resources into the special needs area during the boom times, some of that was cut but it is one of the legacies we have from the bubble. Rural areas have many smaller primary schools that just wouldn't be viable in a private system.

steddyeddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Speaking anecdotally here but I was constantly ridiculed in school for wanting to sit in a break times reading books. Fast forward onto secondary school where people talked about getting arts degrees as a pretense for going to Galway and partying (no offence intended to arts graduates here btw). I knew that I wanted to do science from the outset and that pursuing that career required going to University so I worked hard while most of the people I knew were out drinking. A lot of people just don't have an interest. Of course some do and such aspirations should be both encourage and supported but the chances are that if someone comes from a low income background then their parents will be less likely to support any sort of high ambition.

I did too. I was always interested in learning. I had to know how something worked.

A lot of people don't have the interest on both sides of the economic fence. Likewise both sides have their scientists, economists and engineers.

Science is roughly 500 points now. We have people doing it just because it's good for jobs. We're getting a lot of people who just aren't interested.

FactCheck

I just want to draw attention to the whole "voucher" argument - I don't want people to let the Irish system off the hook too much here.

It is true that the State will pay teacher's salaries in fee-paying schools, but they will only do so for secondary schools, and only where the school agrees to fully comply with the National Curriculum. (Two examples of schools which recently had to close because of this policy - hurrah, that means millions of euros burden on the taxpayer now).

In other words, you must agree that spending hours per day on religion and Irish is appropriate. If you want an education that focuses more on music, or replaces study of Irish with study of a foreign language spoken by billions of people instead of hundreds of thousands who all also speak English, or emphasises engineering, science, or programming more - well I'm afraid you are out of luck. The Irish government knows better than you what's best for your child, and will not be helping you out.

So let's not pat them on the back just yet - we are a ways off a true voucher system.

And Eddy, this brings me around to my central problem with your vision for all Irish schools - it seems like you just want to make every school the best possible place it could have been - for you. What about the parents who don't want intense streamlined academics? What about parents who want schools for musical talent? Schools for alternative philosophies like Forest Schools? Schools for the full range of religious traditions, and none? Because if you are so afraid of giving parents choice and influence over the course of their children's education, you can't have this diversity. Because, to be blunt, the middle class parents will always wangle their children into the most "successful" school and the parents and students who don't care (and they DO exist, it's not bigotry to say it, posters above have clearly described what it's like attending those schools!) will languish in the crappier ones. It has to be total uniformity, or some parents will be savvier than others.

You will just never, ever win a referendum to remove the education clauses from the Constitution. Again, I'm not one to give the Irish State too much credit, but this clause is as robust a protection for family life and parenting as you can get. You will never, ever get anywhere telling parents they can't do what they think is best for their own children. The drive to get the best education you can for your children is as fundamental a human instinct as there is and the Department of Education would be like King Cnut if it were to try to hold that instinct back.

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote:

You're making that mistake again. It's not the parents we should be focusing on. We should be focusing on the children who value education. A parent might value education but that doesn't mean their child will and vice versa.

Fair point but I don't think you can rely on children to decide what school to go to or what path they want to take in life. They don't even have fully developed frontal lobes so they can't be relied on to make long term decisions. Of course the parents are going to make those decisions.

seamus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Begrudgers, left wing, liberal ect. For the record I think they're indicative of the inability to form a cogent argument.

Oh I agree. But my point is that if someone is happy to pay more tax for the same public system that we have now, just so long as private schools cannot exist, then there can be no logical reasoning behind that except for begrudgery.

The principle is fine. I'm totally with it. But you simply cannot eliminate the "unearned advantage" that wealthier/educated parents will confer on their own children. If they cannot afford a private school, it'll be augmentation by way of extracurricular activities, tools and activities at home, and community initiatives like CoderDojo.

The best way to eliminate the unearned advantage is not to remove funding from private schools, but to increase funding to public schools. If state schools provide equivalent or better education than private schools, people will stop using private schools.

Then all that will be left are less than 1,000 snobs who put more value on the name of the school than the results achieved, and you will have a state system that's both fair and good at educating.

K-9

The constitutional clause seems to be aimed mainly at Church of Ireland schools. I'm sure in its day it played an important part in the constitution, but is it really needed now?

My point is, if we want less religious run schools, the clause seems out dated as it there to protect CoI schools.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't have an answer with what to do with problem students tbh.

In fact, if the extra resources from charging fees do not help with education (as you suggest), then the whole advantage from private schools comes from charging fees to keep out riffraff.

I think better results are a bit of both my 1 and 2, and lots of:

3) Parents who really don't give a crap won't pay fees, so their children are excluded. As Permabear said earlier, having parents who care makes a huge difference.

You'll still have the rich parents who think they are paying so that someone else can give a crap and they don't have to, but you'll exclude all the less wealthy folks whose parents have to choose between school fees and a new car/holiday. If they don't care they won't pay, and your average rate of giving-a-crap goes up for parents of the student body.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In fact, if the extra resources from charging fees do not help with education (as you suggest), then the whole advantage from private schools comes from charging fees to keep out riffraff.

sorry what?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think better results are a bit of both my 1 and 2, and lots of:

3) Parents who really don't give a crap won't pay fees, so their children are excluded. As Permabear said earlier, having parents who care makes a huge difference.

You'll still have the rich parents who think they are paying so that someone else can give a crap and they don't have to, but you'll exclude all the less wealthy folks whose parents have to choose between school fees and a new car/holiday. If they don't care they won't pay, and your average rate of giving-a-crap goes up for parents of the student body.

I'm trying to get a handle of what the comparative advantages that exist are, so that we might ask the state to also provide them, reducing that comparative advantage.

In situations where there's a perceived advantage to one choice (private) over another (public), we can reduce the advantage in two different ways. One, remove/lessen the ability of the 'greater' to implement the advantage (which reduces the overall system output) or two, improve the 'lesser' to implement said advantage (which increases the overall system output). I'm advocating the constructive method of reducing the gap.

the_syco

ted1 wrote: »

Your wrong, private schools suspend students as well.

Never said that they didn't. I did however say that those whose parents are inputting a lot of cash into the school will not be punished.

seamus

the_syco wrote: »

Never said that they didn't. I did however say that those whose parents are inputting a lot of cash into the school will not be punished.

Again, I think you're over-egging this somewhat. This isn't the UK or the US where parents indiscriminately write a 30 grand cheque to the school every year.

Yes, the child of a parent who is a former rugby captain with the school, or who is very generous at the Christmas dinner, will likely get a softer touch than another.
But so too in the public system - the child of the local TD or the Garda sergeant or who's mother is head of the parents' committee, will get favourable treatment above the rest.