Should Private Schools be Closed?

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that would make them multidenominational. I checked years ago and I couldn't find a non-denominational school in Ireland - but I could have missed one.

There are a few schools such as Headfort preparatory boarding primary school in Kells (the Meath one) which is a genuinely private school receiving no money from the state so they wouldn't have a responsibility to teach any religion. But from a friend who went there and was marched up to mass/service in Kells town every Sunday morning they were at least multidenominational (although the school's website says the following: 'Headfort is proud to be non-denominational. We do, however, teach religion, taking an inclusive approach and introducing our pupils to multiple variations of Christianity as well as other major world religions. We hold First Communion services when we have a quorum of pupils whose parents request it; we can also prepare pupils for Confirmation.' That description would, to me, qualify the school as multidenominational, not non-denominational.)

John Scottus teaches religion but in the same way they teach other subjects. So one week it may be Islam the next it could be Buddhism. They also teach foreign languages from a young age. I believe they start with Latin and Greek since they form the root of most western languages. They also study Philosophy.

Deleted User wrote: »

It wasn't in Dublin. That's for sure.

Mullingar.

It used to be a boys only boarding school when I went there. There were about 50% non boarding students. Since I left it's switched to co-ed non boarding.

andekwarhola

It's not fair to foreground serious bullying/assault just because it's a supposedly posh school. You get cnuts everywhere.

I went to a public school in one of the roughest parts of Dublin in the 80s, as I'm sure many here did, and some pretty hair raising stuff went on. It happens everywhere in spite of the area.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

It is an excellent school, especially for languages. But most schools would teach religion nowadays like any other subject. If you have a look at a textbook you'll almost certainly see chapters on each of the world religions. Religion in schools nowadays is a very different thing to what it was when I did it and it can't honestly be seen as just a class about Catholicism in most schools. That said, it's also treated a bit like CSPE in most schools: it's normally not an exam subject so isn't taken seriously.




I know it well. I have one of the black and amber jerseys at home from the early 1950s by virtue of a very close relative who went there and played on the teams. Many other relatives also went there right up until the early 1980s. I never knew it had stopped boarding, or that it became co-ed.

I think it was about 2000 that it stopped boarding and became Co-ed. It was after I left anyway. As far as I'm aware it's probably the most catholic school in the country. Catholic catechism is still taught religiously.

foggy_lad

ted1 wrote: »

If I recall correctly you did another thread before about closing semi private schools, that chip must be huge.

With all the revelations in the news today , should we disband all soccer clubs ?

I would love if you could find a link to that thread please.

Grayson

foggy_lad wrote: »

I would love if you could find a link to that thread please.

Here it is.

Couldn't help it

764dak

foggy_lad wrote: »

Is it time that these elitist boarding schools were shut down and students put into mainstream education instead?

Are all private schools also boarding schools?

Bridge93

Deleted User wrote: »

If people want to send their children to fee-charging schools, let them pay for them fully and not be supplemented by our taxes. That €100 million plus subsidy would be better spent building up a state school system. If that were removed from fee-charging schools their fees would increase from c. €6500 to c. €25,000 per annum (which is the sort of fees charged by "Independent Schools" in England, where private schools have received no state subsidies since 1975).


At any rate, fee-charging schools are not good value for money in the vast majority of cases as there are many excellent public schools. For instance, the school in the state with the highest number of students going on to university is not a fee-charging school but a free gaelscoil in Stillorgan, Coláiste Eoin. Given the advantages the €6k plus fee per year gives to fee-charging schools in terms of resources this says something about the merits of fee-charging schools. An engaged/involved parent is a much greater benefit to a child's education than the extra resources which a fee-charging school can provide - e.g. sailing lessons.

Essentially the fee-charging schools are about aping the English public school system - have you ever seen a fee-charging school that is not anglocentic/does not promote English sports? - but getting the Irish taxpayer to supplement this institutionalised cultural cringe. Let these jumped-up Paddys pay in full for their notions.

It's amazing you can stay on your feet as long as you do with a chip that big on your shoulder. Most of this is bitter stereotyping.

Fee paying schools save the state money. Of this there is no doubt. You can deal in hypotheticals and what ifs if they all closed but as it is now fee paying schools save the state money.
You feel those who send their kids to fee schools should have to pay full price. As an extension so you feel their taxes should be funding others education while getting no benefit for their own kids. As citizens of the state they are entitled to a portion of the fruits of the tax system. 100% of fee paying parents pay taxes. 100% of those who don't pay tax send kids to public schools. There has to be some fairness in state funding of fee paying schools.
There are many many excellent non fee schools. Colaiste Eoin as a Gaelscoil however being top is an outlier. The majority of schools below it are fee paying despite being a tiny proportion of the schools on the island. Gaelscoils also are not typical given the kids have to be very competent in Irish. This naturally means a more academically intelligent child is likely to get through the entry tests.
Who are you to say fee paying schools aren't value for money? How people spend their own money is their business and they may take great value from it. Despite the proven higher academics they provide opportunities and facilities far beyond academics. If parents value that that's there call, not yours
Not going to bother with the sailing classes comments as it's a childish dig.
The last paragraph is embarrassing, get a grip of yourself. I'm surprised you cant identify why there may be artefacts of the English schooling system present in schools that were opened when Ireland was under British rule. Or maybe you just want them to change their traditions and methods of operation to suit yourself.
The school I was in didn't 'promote' English sports, it offered all kinds of sports to the kids. You sound like a relic from a bygone era of the GAA, as if playing English sports is bad. Nearly every school in the country has a football team, are they all 'promoting' English sports if they don't also have a GAA team?
I spent 11 years in non fee education and 3 in fee paying and loved both equally. But this bitterness and disregard for the truth about fee schools from some is astounding.

ted1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're projecting. I sense the entire academic school thing and academics generally make you uncomfortable. That's fine. However, I said 'many parents', and like it or not many parents do look at Leaving Certificate results. Just accept it and move on.



Actually, it's first on the list (although why you're getting fixated on this tangential point is a bit strange). Again you seem to be creating a parallel universe for yourself there. Here's the article for a third time. Read it... carefully. And a helpful sentence (again): 'Coláiste Eoin in Stillorgan, Co Dublin, an all-boys gaelscoil, heads the overall rankings'. Move on, please.



Have you seen some McKinsey report on the finances of this move? If not how can you be so sure about such things? Could you link to one of these "reports"?

Number 18
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.joe.ie/amp/news/the-top-25-schools-in-the-country-have-been-revealed/510116?client=safari

sabhail

The school being fee paying or not is irrelevant. As posters have said, every school has its share of scumbags, the questions are how they're managed and how incidents are dealt with.

From newspaper and radio rpts so far, I wouldn't be impressed with school.

Rubberchikken

op stupid question.
should private schools be closed? no.
people who mistreat others are everywhere, and well you know it.

dotsman

dotsman wrote: »

..............
57% of students attend private schools..............

Seriously?

foggy_lad

Yes I meant fee paying schools and most boarding schools.

It seems strange that the 8 pupils involved in this attack were only suspended, surely it is in the schools interest to send a clear message by immediately expelling anyone involved in such behaviour regardless of their level of involvement?

steddyeddy

I don't believe they should be closed but I struggle to find a reason people should be divided based on wealth or gender.

However, I think we should bring the least performing schools up and genders(in STEM subjects) to match those at the top.

Bridge93

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't believe they should be closed but I struggle to find a reason people should be divided based on wealth or gender.

However, I think we should bring the least performing schools up and genders(in STEM subjects) to match those at the top.

So I assume you think everyone should drive a similar car, or live in a similar priced house, or go on the same holidays? How people choose to spend their own money is their own business. They provide a more rounded education due to the opportunities they offer outside the classroom.
The gender comment has some social reasoning I think I remember hearing. Students, guys in particular, work better when the other sex isn't there or something

Water John

The school cannot preempt the police investigation. More nonsense from you.
Sadly, the school delayed reporting assault, it seems.
Suspending, pending full investigation by police, is appropriate.

seamus

Nothing has changed really since this topic last came up.

To close private schools, or bring them into public ownership would result in a net cost to the exchequer. The state saves around €100m (IIRC) by having a small number of parents subsidise their child's education via private school.

The current public school system does not have the capacity to take the students currently being educated privately.

In ideal terms all education would be equal, the quality of all schools equal, and all schools free and public. However, even if the state were to absorb the cost of purchasing all private schools and making them into public schools, you cannot get around basic socio-economic factors;

1. Wealthier parents can still subsidise their child's education in other ways; patronage, philanthropy and extra-curricular activities
2. Schools in wealthier areas tend to get better results than schools in poorer areas because parents place a higher value on education
3. Schools that get better results attract better students and teachers. There's a feedback loop / downward spiral in that regard.

If the state was really serious about improving education it would look to model the Finnish system and create a much higher bar for both attaining and retaining a job as a secondary teacher. And it would double the amount of non-payroll funding currently going into schools.

Most parents would rather not pay large sums for their child to go to private school. They feel they need to if they want to obtain the best education. Remove that barrier and private schools will go out of business.

Shop40

This is just shocking. I had this school on my list for my daughter as we live locally. Not anymore. What annoys me the embellishment that goes on on school websites e.g there's a housemaster supervising the dorms. Really? Where was he? Why have the child protection policy on the website to reassure parents if it's not enforced?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems obvious that there has been an attempted cover-up of the situation, and only when the story got out to the media was it officially reported. Disgusting! That poor boy, and his family who are no doubt living a long distance away depending on the powers that be to do the right thing.
The headmaster should be sacked, no question. Also what is wrong with these boys, that they think this behaviour is human?

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

Nothing has changed really since this topic last came up.

To close private schools, or bring them into public ownership would result in a net cost to the exchequer. The state saves around €100m (IIRC) by having a small number of parents subsidise their child's education via private school.

The current public school system does not have the capacity to take the students currently being educated privately.

In ideal terms all education would be equal, the quality of all schools equal, and all schools free and public. However, even if the state were to absorb the cost of purchasing all private schools and making them into public schools, you cannot get around basic socio-economic factors;

1. Wealthier parents can still subsidise their child's education in other ways; patronage, philanthropy and extra-curricular activities
2. Schools in wealthier areas tend to get better results than schools in poorer areas because parents place a higher value on education
3. Schools that get better results attract better students and teachers. There's a feedback loop / downward spiral in that regard.

If the state was really serious about improving education it would look to model the Finnish system and create a much higher bar for both attaining and retaining a job as a secondary teacher. And it would double the amount of non-payroll funding currently going into schools.

Most parents would rather not pay large sums for their child to go to private school. They feel they need to if they want to obtain the best education. Remove that barrier and private schools will go out of business.

I don't think the cost to the state should be an issue. When I lived in Tanzania only 5% of girls went onto secondary school. The state often complained the cost to correct things would be too high. So as regard education I don't think the cost matters.

I agree 100% on the Finnish attitude towards teachers.

nice_guy80

Bridge93 wrote: »

It's amazing you can stay on your feet as long as you do with a chip that big on your shoulder. Most of this is bitter stereotyping.

Fee paying schools save the state money. Of this there is no doubt. You can deal in hypotheticals and what ifs if they all closed but as it is now fee paying schools save the state money.
You feel those who send their kids to fee schools should have to pay full price. As an extension so you feel their taxes should be funding others education while getting no benefit for their own kids. As citizens of the state they are entitled to a portion of the fruits of the tax system. 100% of fee paying parents pay taxes. 100% of those who don't pay tax send kids to public schools. There has to be some fairness in state funding of fee paying schools.
There are many many excellent non fee schools. Colaiste Eoin as a Gaelscoil however being top is an outlier. The majority of schools below it are fee paying despite being a tiny proportion of the schools on the island. Gaelscoils also are not typical given the kids have to be very competent in Irish. This naturally means a more academically intelligent child is likely to get through the entry tests.
Who are you to say fee paying schools aren't value for money? How people spend their own money is their business and they may take great value from it. Despite the proven higher academics they provide opportunities and facilities far beyond academics. If parents value that that's there call, not yours
Not going to bother with the sailing classes comments as it's a childish dig.
The last paragraph is embarrassing, get a grip of yourself. I'm surprised you cant identify why there may be artefacts of the English schooling system present in schools that were opened when Ireland was under British rule. Or maybe you just want them to change their traditions and methods of operation to suit yourself.
The school I was in didn't 'promote' English sports, it offered all kinds of sports to the kids. You sound like a relic from a bygone era of the GAA, as if playing English sports is bad. Nearly every school in the country has a football team, are they all 'promoting' English sports if they don't also have a GAA team?
I spent 11 years in non fee education and 3 in fee paying and loved both equally. But this bitterness and disregard for the truth about fee schools from some is astounding.

most schools in rural areas don't have soccer teams or rugby teams
primary and secondary

VinLieger

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think the cost to the state should be an issue. When I lived in Tanzania only 5% of girls went onto secondary school. The state often complained the cost to correct things would be too high. So as regard education I don't think the cost matters.

I agree 100% on the Finnish attitude towards teachers.

The cost has to be considered though as right now its simply not possible for every student in private education to be allocated for in public schools. To do so would require not only the doubling of the amount it costs to educate every private student publicly but the costs of buying all the schools required and paying all the extra teachers. The numbers stack up very quickly

steddyeddy

Bridge93 wrote: »

So I assume you think everyone should drive a similar car, or live in a similar priced house, or go on the same holidays? How people choose to spend their own money is their own business. They provide a more rounded education due to the opportunities they offer outside the classroom.
The gender comment has some social reasoning I think I remember hearing. Students, guys in particular, work better when the other sex isn't there or something

No I don't, I'm a big believer in merit. People who work harder should do better and smarter people who're smarter should go further. I don't believe in unearned head starts based on gender, race or social class.

ted1

Shop40 wrote: »

This is just shocking. I had this school on my list for my daughter as we live locally. Not anymore. What annoys me the embellishment that goes on on school websites e.g there's a housemaster supervising the dorms. Really? Where was he? Why have the child protection policy on the website to reassure parents if it's not enforced?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems obvious that there has been an attempted cover-up of the situation, and only when the story got out to the media was it officially reported. Disgusting! That poor boy, and his family who are no doubt living a long distance away depending on the powers that be to do the right thing.
The headmaster should be sacked, no question. Also what is wrong with these boys, that they think this behaviour is human?

The same school was involved in the swim coach scandal and paid out 6 figure sums to several students.

VinLieger

steddyeddy wrote: »

No I don't, I'm a big believer in merit. People who work harder should do better and smarter people who're smarter should go further. I don't believe in unearned head starts based on gender, race or social class.

Ive had this exact same argument with you before but its simply impossible to stop people subsidising their childs education if they have the means to do so, removing private education as an option will mean these parents simply use grinds etc

steddyeddy

VinLieger wrote: »

The cost has to be considered though as right now its simply not possible for every student in private education to be allocated for in public schools. To do so would require not only the doubling of the amount it costs to educate every private student publicly but the costs of buying all the schools required and paying all the extra teachers. The numbers stack up very quickly

I actually think tax should be raised to do so. I think making it easier to sack bad teachers is something private schools have the public do not. It should be easy to implement.

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't believe in unearned head starts based on gender, race or social class.

Private school could be an 'earned' head start though.

Smart person works hard and makes money, can afford to sends kid to private school.

Does that child have an earned or unearned head start*?

(*assuming for the purposes of discussion that the private school is in fact a better choice, which is not always the case)

steddyeddy

VinLieger wrote: »

Ive had this exact same argument with you before but its simply impossible to stop people subsidising their childs education if they have the means to do so, removing private education as an option will mean these parents simply use grinds etc

I don't think we should remove private education but I think we should recognise the inequality a two-tier system perpetrates.

VinLieger

steddyeddy wrote: »

I actually think tax should be raised to do so. I think making it easier to sack bad teachers is something private schools have the public do not. It should be easy to implement.

I agree that teacher tenure and protections around bad teachers by unions is a serious issue, but not all private school teachers are paid by the school i think it ends up being around 50% are publicly paid although I can't say for certain

ted1

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think we should remove private education but I think we should recognise the inequality a two-tier system perpetrates.

That's life, until we switch to a socialist or communist system then it's always going to be the case.

Get over it.

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

Private school could be an 'earned' head start though.

Smart person works hard and makes money, can afford to sends kid to private school.

Does that child have an earned or unearned head start (assuming for the purposes of discussion that the private school is in fact a better choice, which is not always the case)?

Let's start with your second statement. Most of the time it was a better choice. It was a better choice for me when I was enrolled in a science summer school for private school kids. It changed everything for me.

The first statement is a bit black and white for me.

What usually happens is person works hard, can or cannot afford to send kids to better school or escape deprived area, child has less advantages in life, works hard and the cycle continues.

No the child does not earn the head start unless he/she is more academically gifted.

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

No the child does not earn the head start unless he/she is more academically gifted.

Has the parent, through their hard work, earned the right to give their child a headstart?

steddyeddy

ted1 wrote: »

That's life, until we switch to a socialist or communist system then it's always going to be the case.

Get over it.

Well Ted I'm actually a big supporter of grammar schools. I'm currently based in the UK and support a local campaign for a modified grammar shcool system. The biggest opponents? People who have benefited or send their kids to private school. They complain that academic selection benefits those more academically gifted. My advice? Get over it.

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

Has the parent, through their hard work, earned the right to give their child a headstart?

Is it right to give a child a better education based on the gender, income or race of the child's parent? No. Is it right to give a child a better start because of his or her intelligence? Yes.

steddyeddy

I'm not getting into the private schools argument again but I'll say that grammar schools are the way to go. They favor selection by academic ability.

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well Ted I'm actually a big supporter of grammar schools. I'm currently based in the UK and support a local campaign for a modified grammar shcool system. The biggest opponents? People who have benefited or send their kids to private school. They complain that academic selection benefits those more academically gifted. My advice? Get over it.

Probably worth a read for you:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/23/theresa-mays-grammar-school-claims-disproved-by-new-study

Grammar schools do not improve the exam results of bright students beyond what they would have achieved at a good comprehensive, while more grammars would widen the attainment gap between rich and poor, a study has found.
The analysis of GCSE performance in selective state schools, carried out by the Education Policy Institute, concluded: “We find no evidence to suggest that overall educational standards in England would be improved by creating additional grammar schools.”

Report's key findings here: http://epi.org.uk/report/grammar-schools-social-mobility/

full report here:http://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Grammar-schools-and-social-mobility_.pdf

ted1

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is it right to give a child a better education based on the gender, income or race of the child's parent? No. Is it right to give a child a better start because of his or her intelligence? Yes.

Do you want the less intelligent kids to start school a few years ahead of the others so they catch up? Perhaps start the intelligent kids later.

How do you judge intelligence ? Good grades? I've seen plenty of people with great grades fail after they leave the education system while people with mediocre results thrive after they leave the education system.

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

Probably worth a read for you:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/23/theresa-mays-grammar-school-claims-disproved-by-new-study

Read already but the study was based on current grammar schools in the UK. Not the proposed system. Since grammar schools were abolished social mobility and entrance of disadvantaged students into Oxbridge has decreased.

steddyeddy

ted1 wrote: »

Do you want the less intelligent kids to start school a few years ahead if the others do they catch up? Perhaps start the intelligent kids later.

How do you judge intelligence ? Good grades? I've seen plenty of people with great grades fail after they leave the education system while people with mediocre results thrive after they leave the education system.

Why must every kid have the same educational outcome? Surely a more intelligent, academically gifted child should be rewarded and not punished?

ted1

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why must every kid have the same educational outcome? Surely a more intelligent, academically gifted child should be rewarded and not punished?

But you want to punish kids who's parents take an interest in their well being and are willing to invest in their education.

Schooling isn't just about academics. Kids need a rounded education.

Good grades doesn't necessarily mean they are intelligent. It just means they can repeat what they heard in class and maybe don't actually understand what us actually happening.

josha1

steddyeddy wrote: »

Let's start with your second statement. Most of the time it was a better choice. It was a better choice for me when I was enrolled in a science summer school for private school kids. It changed everything for me.

The first statement is a bit black and white for me.

What usually happens is person works hard, can or cannot afford to send kids to better school or escape deprived area, child has less advantages in life, works hard and the cycle continues.

No the child does not earn the head start unless he/she is more academically gifted.

Your school of thought seems to have 2 different opinions on it
1) Stop paying tax for private schools. So parents who pay tax to the state that pay for part of their own child's education, as well as subsidising public school students should have no benefit. You can't really say anything about equality if this is your opinion.
2) Close private schools to massively increase both upfront and ongoing costs for the state, resulting in lower standards for both sets of students.

I don't know whether it was you or another that said private schools can remove teachers more easily. In reality most core teachers are paid for by the state in both schools. They cannot therefore decide that a teacher isn't good enough, but rather keep them there for as long as the teacher desires either teaching kids poorly or else doing menial work. Private schools do employ lots of other staff at the direct cost of parents, and can remove these staff, but these are generally not for the core subjects anyway.

Whether or not the system whereby teachers practically can't be fired in both sets of schools is a different conversation. Having teachers completely results orientated is clearly not the way to go, but neither is the current system.

Only in places like IOE, Yeats college can any teacher be removed for not getting x a1's, since they are businesses, and not private schools. No one there is employed by the state.

I think that you're stereotyping the typical private school parent by the way, on top of everything else. The vast majority of them have 2 parents that work full time long hours, and have done all their lives. If they do so, and manage after all their work to pay ~6 grand a year for their kid to go to a private school, why shouldn't they be able. In the majority of cases, parents make huge sacrifices to put their kids in the school that they desire.

Re academia, you seem to think that private schools=academic schools, and that 'intelligent' people should go there (for free), and intelligent people only. By extension, you're stating that we should all aspire to become the next Einstein, rather than becoming well rounded individuals. Parents who save, while paying extortionate taxes to subsidise public school students shouldn't be able to send their kids to the school that they want, because their kids are simply not smart enough to go there. This will simply result in a situation like they have in the Uk, where kids are not only pushed to learn off reams of information and study from dark to dawn for the JC and LC, but also before entering secondary schools, akin to the P11 which they eventually replaced.

Lastly, I'd like to note that a fair amount of private schools offer not only financial help for parents in financial difficulty, but also offer scholarships for things including but not limited to social background, academic ability, drama, sporting ability etc. Although I don't know if that would be of much concern to you, considering only academic ability apparently matters.

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

Read already but the study was based on current grammar schools in the UK. Not the proposed system.

The proposed system includes quotas for disadvantaged students, doesn't it?

That wouldn't really easily reconcile with the idea of it being decided on academic merit.

Could we have a situation where academically brighter students are losing out as a quota has to be met?

seamus

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think the cost to the state should be an issue. When I lived in Tanzania only 5% of girls went onto secondary school. The state often complained the cost to correct things would be too high. So as regard education I don't think the cost matters.

Ultimately you and I know this is a pretty tenuous comparison.

The only inequality is in the funding of the school. The curriculum is the same, access to information is the same. There's a world of difference between, "I can't go to school" and "my school doesn't have a swimming pool".

I know you're Irish, but I wonder is your view of this a little tainted by living in the UK? Over there the whole class system is a "thing" and access to a lot of stuff is dependant on class. Even if you have the money, who you are and where you come from may block you.

In Ireland it's not. In general once you have the money to pay for something, you can have it. There's not a massive gulf between private and public schools and what comes out it. There are some areas of snobbery, but it's relatively quiet and hushed in corners. Anyone who suggested that a person was "better" because they went to King's Hospital or Blackrock College would be laughed out of the room.

Whereas in the UK, saying you went to Eton would be worn as a badge of honour.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

I think people are confusing thinking a two tier education system is wrong (me) with wanting to close private schools (someone else).

If women were being discriminated against in STEM subjects then that is also wrong. The fact that I think it's wrong however, does not mean that I want to bring down male scientists.

I don't think there's a poster here who doesn't think the gap in educational quality is wrong.

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

Ultimately you and I know this is a pretty tenuous comparison.

The only inequality is in the funding of the school. The curriculum is the same, access to information is the same. There's a world of difference between, "I can't go to school" and "my school doesn't have a swimming pool".

I know you're Irish, but I wonder is your view of this a little tainted by living in the UK? Over there the whole class system is a "thing" and access to a lot of stuff is dependant on class. Even if you have the money, who you are and where you come from may block you.

In Ireland it's not. In general once you have the money to pay for something, you can have it. There's not a massive gulf between private and public schools and what comes out it. There are some areas of snobbery, but it's relatively quiet and hushed in corners. Anyone who suggested that a person was "better" because they went to King's Hospital or Blackrock College would be laughed out of the room.

Whereas in the UK, saying you went to Eton would be worn as a badge of honour.

Contrary to my posts I don't have an anti-private school view. I think private school classes gave me massive benefits and without the, I'm not sure if I would be where I am today.

The situation in the UK is different alright. Ireland is a fantastic country for social mobility IMHO.

steddyeddy

ted1 wrote: »

But you want to punish kids who's parents take an interest in their well being and are willing to invest in their education.

Saying I disagree with a two tier system is wanting to punish kids? I think the kids should toughen up if that offends them.

Schooling isn't just about academics. Kids need a rounded education.

I agree.

[/QUOTE]Good grades doesn't necessarily mean they are intelligent. It just means they can repeat what they heard in class and maybe don't actually understand what us actually happening.[/QUOTE]

Again I agree but there's ways to test intelligence if we move away from the simple memory tests the leaving cert offers.

maudgonner

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think people are confusing thinking a two tier education system is wrong (me) with wanting to close private schools (someone else).

If women were being discriminated against in STEM subjects then that is also wrong. The fact that I think it's wrong however, does not mean that I want to bring down male scientists.

I don't think there's a poster here who doesn't think the gap in educational quality is wrong.

Where do you draw the line though? Should parents not be allowed to pay for grinds for their kids? They surely give an unfair advantage. How about buying additional textbooks & materials? How about bringing kids to see live productions of plays that are on the syllabus?

Parents already pay contributions to most public schools to provide extras, how is paying for additional teachers & facilities somehow more morally wrong than that?

SEPT 23 1989

Its not about the education its about the contacts

josha1

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think people are confusing thinking a two tier education system is wrong (me) with wanting to close private schools (someone else).

If women were being discriminated against in STEM subjects then that is also wrong. The fact that I think it's wrong however, does not mean that I want to bring down male scientists.

I don't think there's a poster here who doesn't think the gap in educational quality is wrong.

But you are anti-fee paying, and pro academic schools, based solely on 'intelligence'?

So all of this still applies to you,

I think that you're stereotyping the typical private school parent by the way, on top of everything else. The vast majority of them have 2 parents that work full time long hours, and have done all their lives. If they do so, and manage after all their work to pay ~6 grand a year for their kid to go to a private school, why shouldn't they be able. In the majority of cases, parents make huge sacrifices to put their kids in the school that they desire.

Re academia, you seem to think that private schools=academic schools, and that 'intelligent' people should go there (for free), and intelligent people only. By extension, you're stating that we should all aspire to become the next Einstein, rather than becoming well rounded individuals. Parents who save, while paying extortionate taxes to subsidise public school students shouldn't be able to send their kids to the school that they want, because their kids are simply not smart enough to go there. This will simply result in a situation like they have in the Uk, where kids are not only pushed to learn off reams of information and study from dark to dawn for the JC and LC, but also before entering secondary schools, akin to the P11 which they eventually replaced.

Lastly, I'd like to note that a fair amount of private schools offer not only financial help for parents in financial difficulty, but also offer scholarships for things including but not limited to social background, academic ability, drama, sporting ability etc. Although I don't know if that would be of much concern to you, considering only academic ability apparently matters.

Fratton Fred

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you were in a fee-charging school in Dublin it was a rugby school first and foremost.

My kid's school is fee paying and it's CofI (nominally).

There is no rugby played there at all.

ted1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The state pays for some of the teachers the school hires some teachers directly do as to provide smaller classes/ support teachers or additional subjects.