Private Fee-Paying Schools

Piste

The state isn't funding private education, parents are. The state provides the same basic amount for everyone, parents just top this up, and if they can afford to they should be allowed to.

K4t

SarcasticFairy wrote: »

But if the private schools were made public surely money would have to be spread more thinly over more schools, seeing as the Government would now be funding the public schools and then the now public-private schools (if that makes sense...)? They would be seeing less money, rather than some of the €90million?

Yes, but what I'm saying is that private schools don't deserve any money at all. If they go public then give them the money, as much as they need to get up to the average standard. It will cost less to the Government in the long run than paying them millions every year.

If they remain private, give them nothing and let the parents pay everything. They can afford it.

SarcasticFairy

Piste wrote: »

It's unlikely they'd see part of that €90 million, most of it would go to either building new schools or expanding existing ones so the students who now can't afford to go to private schools (seeing as they would no longer be government-funded) have to go to a public one.

Also it's completely unfair to suggest that parent's tax money should not go to their child's education just because they could afford to send them to a private school.

SarcasticFairy wrote: »

But if the private schools were made public surely money would have to be spread more thinly over more schools, seeing as the Government would now be funding the public schools and then the now public-private schools (if that makes sense...)? They would be seeing less money, rather than some of the €90million?

Oh sorry, I took it up wrong. The private schools are staying private but they're not getting funding. Gotcha

I'd have to agree with Piste here. The private school fees only go towards extra things, not the basic stuff public schools get. That €90million has nothing to do with public schools. The parents of private school students still pay tax, and chances are they're contributing more tax if they can afford a place in a private school, and so have every right to have some of that go towards their childs education.

Piste

K4t wrote: »

Yes, but what I'm saying is that private schools don't deserve any money at all. If they go public then give them the money, as much as they need to get up to the average standard. It will cost less to the Government in the long run than paying them millions every year.

If they remain private, give them nothing and let the parents pay everything. They can afford it.

Not all parents could afford the major increase in fees there would be if all government funding were cut. Also the government wouldn't be any better off for it, they'd be giving them the same amount as private schools as they did as public schools. Private schools get no extra government money.

K4t

SarcasticFairy wrote: »

Oh sorry, I took it up wrong. The private schools are staying private but they're not getting funding. Gotcha

I'd have to agree with Piste here. The private school fees only go towards extra things, not the basic stuff public schools get. That €90million has nothing to do with public schools. The parents of private school students still pay tax, and chances are they're contributing more tax if they can afford a place in a private school, and so have every right to have some of that go towards their childs education.

I would not be the least bit surprised if part of that money is going towards extra facilities etc.
Anyway, I've said enough. Later.

johnk123

Relax people! :pac:

I go to a private school which my parents choose to pay for and they do so for certain reasons. As explained by my principal, every school has X number of teachers whose salaries are paid for by the state, but in our school, a certain percentage of our fees go towards providing extra teachers to keep class sizes down. (at least i think thats how it was explained to me!)

Also, they pay fee's for my brother and i so we can enjoy our time in school. Fantastic facilities, unbelievable choice of sports etc(Mainly Rugby in most case), great class morale and good atmosphere between teachers and students. Sure our teachers even say it too us. Like some of the horror stories you hear that they have experienced in recent years sounded like scenes from a prison, nevermind a school!

And i DO think that private school should receive funding from the DoE. Our parents pay taxes like everyone else, so why shouldn't we be entitled to get something back? If they didn't fund our private schools, it'd be like my parents were paying the fees for pupils in a public schools on top of my fees.

Piste

I'm in a public school but by the souns of it it's just like yours, though the only reason we have good facilities is because the parents paid for them, though it was entirely voluntary.

SarcasticFairy

K4t wrote: »

I would not be the least bit surprised if part of that money is going towards extra facilities etc.
Anyway, I've said enough. Later.

Who so sceptical?
I go to a DEIS school, so my school is one of the worse off in the country, and yet, I do not see why the parents of private school students should have to pay (somewhat) for me to go to school. They are only paying for the extras. Do you really think the Government are going to fund anything they don't have to? The roof started to fall off in two of the classrooms and the Government said it wasn't bad enough to give us money to fix it - clearly they will get out of whatever they can!

--paul--

Here relax i go to a private school and it's a kip,would much rather have gone to a public school as the ones in my area are far better than my private school,the idea that you should take away funding from private school is ridiculous though,the funding they recieve from fees are a fraction of their total funds so if it were to happen then private schools would simply turn public or close,so it wont and could never happen,end of.

Blisterman

efb wrote: »

Because it creates an inequality on children that don't choose their socioeconomic background, they're born into it.

Possibly so, but there would be a much worse division between private and public schools, were private schools to cost in the 10s of thousands, like in England. There, only the richest of the rich, can afford it.
I went to a private school in Dublin, and there were quite a few people from modest backgrounds, whose parents made serious sacrifices to keep them there. It wasn't just rich kids.

themont85

K4t wrote: »

I think €90m would go a long way.

The fact is that the State shouldn't be funding private education at all. If you can't see that then it's your loss.

Socially and financially your argument is flawed. Read my OP post on it.

The 90 million 'savings' would turn into a cost for the government, they would have to build new schools. I think its 8% go to fee paying schools. At least 3-4% would go to the free sector. Not all parents who send their kids to fee paying schools are loaded. I'll admit i attended a fee paying school. What i can tell you is that we all weren't loaded. Yes in my year we had lads dads who were high up in various companies, barristors ect but we also had teachers, plumbers sons aswell. I'll admit we didn't have what could be as classed as 'poor' people but we had as normal people as you'd get anywhere. Certain parents really save to send their kids to these schools, it can for the ethos(such as Protestant ones for rural areas) ect. They pay taxes, their children are entitled to free 2nd level, why aren't they entitled to a little of the tax going to their kids? They save the State money. TBH i dunno if my parents would have sent me to a fee paying school if it was completely 'private' in the strictest sense of the word, the fees would have being nearly double i reckon, out of reach to most. I would have gone to the 'free sector' and thus become a bigger burden for the State.

I have already discussed other repurcussions such as a two tier teaching sector and a greater number of grind schools(no all round education there).

Socially your theory is flawed on many levels. Number 1, everybody is born to different classes and parents wealth so automatically we are already advantaged or disadvantaged in life for many things including education from a young age which the Govt doesn't cater for. Number 2, your proposal will create a far more elitist private sector where by only the very very rich could afford. These schools would be miles better than their free counterparts(far far more than currently), with better teachers ect. These kids would be a hell of a lot more advantaged than current fee paying ones are.

TBH this argument is a load of drivel which is driven by numpties such as the TUI. It looks terrible on paper 'OMG look at those rich kids taking 90m of our money, omg thats terrible look at disabled facilities' blah blah blah. Its a smokescreen. Fee paying sector was hit hardest by the budget cuts technically which is fair to an extent because these parents can afford smaller increases in fees, however, there are a lot of small religously ethosed schools which were hit hard and this is hardly fair. The new Minister of Education didn't even fumble the question when he was asked recently, he catagorically said 'No', he knows the savings it makes.

You'll grow out of your socialist nirvanna when you get older mate

Edit; fair play to Brian Hayes actually, he isn't taking the easy road in opposition of saying 'oh its a disgrace', he's looking at the situation logically.

Fad

K4t wrote: »

I imagine that the majority of children going to private schools are from well off backgrounds so I'd doubt they'd stop going private.

You kinda leave out the middle class (A social group I'm fairly happy to be a part of), my parents work hard, and they made sacrifices to send me to a decent school in my area, which I appreciate, if the school was jack up fees, they wouldnt be able to pay them, so I'd have to leave, and getting a place in another school wouldnt exactly be easy.......

Piste wrote: »

I'm in a public school actually.

And its alot nicer than mine

The one exception to the rule:P

Davidius

We should abolish private schools. If parents really want the best of the best for their kids they can make voluntary contributions. Thus a perfect world is born!

(Impractical idealism for the win!)

whadabouchasir

My argument is that if you can afford to send your children to a fee paying school then you should not deprive other schools in disadvantaged areas of funding that they would otherwise from the Government. Also on the point of ordinary people leaving fee paying scools if grants were abolished thus increasing the pessure on public schools is ridiculous. Fee paying schools would not be able to increase their fees that much because if they did then no-one would go to them. As a result of this the standard of education would not be that much higher and so the whole education system would be more balanced.I would also like to ask anyone going to a fee paying school the question, ihave any students in your year dropped out before the leaving and are on the dole? Because I know several.So don't try and justify this plea for funding because an area with 17% unemployment needs it more!

themont85

whadabouchasir wrote: »

My argument is that if you can afford to send your children to a fee paying school then you should not deprive other schools in disadvantaged areas of funding that they would otherwise from the Government.

How are they 'depriving' kids in disadvanted areas money, they are giving them extra because they aren't choosing to go through the free sector thus freeing up money the government has to spend in disadvantaged areas. Your argument is pants.

whadabouchasir wrote: »

Also on the point of ordinary people leaving fee paying scools if grants were abolished thus increasing the pessure on public schools is ridiculous. Fee paying schools would not be able to increase their fees that much because if they did then no-one would go to them.

Once again flawed. Fee paying schools would have to up their fees in order to maintain their levels and their student body. If they don't then spending would have to to be slashed on things which fee paying schools currently spend on like facilities and sports. Numbers attending these schools would definately reduce as why the hell would parents spend their money on it? Another consequence would be more grind schools like the institute whilst we would have more in the free sector.

whadabouchasir wrote: »

As a result of this the standard of education would not be that much higher and so the whole education system would be more balanced.

No it wouldn't we would have a far more elitist private sector like in the US and more grind schools. The standards in public schools would go down therefore increasing the current gap.

whadabouchasir wrote: »

I would also like to ask anyone going to a fee paying school the question, ihave any students in your year dropped out before the leaving and are on the dole? Because I know several.So don't try and justify this plea for funding because an area with 17% unemployment needs it more!

How is this relevant at all? In my year one guy dropped out iirc for an apprentiship out of about 85 during my whole time there everybody, barring 2 lads went to 3rd level, 1 repeated and the other one was a waster, to answer your question.

This thread isn't about the merits of fee paying schools. But if you want to know why parents send their kids there, there are several reason such as religous ethos, sports, facilities, family traditition, quality of education. Waiting lists for these schools are very high, so parents send their kids for a reason.

Whilst I have plenty of sympathy for an area with 17% unemplyment, on the flip side our second level free scheme is very good and we have affordable 3rd level. The reasons these areas have such bad rates in mainly because of sustained poverty which should be helped, however, bad attitudes from parents towards education and badly run schools are a problem too. I wouldn't blame fee paying schools or their parents for this.

whadabouchasir

Currently the government gives the same funding to private schools as schools in the most disadvantaged areas so even though you have sympathy for them you're not doing anything about it. The only way forward is to give more to those who need it more and less to thosewho need it less, this may cost more in the short term but in the long term results would be a more balanced educational system.

themont85

whadabouchasir wrote: »

Currently the government gives the same funding to private schools as schools in the most disadvantaged areas so even though you have sympathy for them you're not doing anything about it. The only way forward is to give more to those who need it more and less to thosewho need it less, this may cost more in the short term but in the long term results would be a more balanced educational system.

The Government does not give the same funding, that is a lie with no fact behind it. The government pays for in fee paying schools for one teacher for every 20 students, that is it basically. They pay for all the other capital costs, running costs in free schools on top of teachers salaries.

There will be a much bigger gap than before. Read my other posts. There are several consequences. Have you ever been to America? There they have a smaller private sector but much more elitist and a massive gap between the free high school sector and their private schools, far bigger than here.

This would have negative long term and short term consequences; free sector costs more thus perhaps reducing the governments ability to pay extra in disadvantaged areas, bigger gap in education, more grind schools, 2 tier teaching sector ect. Read my other posts im not bothered elaborating further on them.

Your proposal wouldn't help disadvantaged schools it would weaken them.

The only way for us to have a balanced system is to weaken good schools currently. Why not just make the bad ones and bad parents better?

Actually there's another option. Lets change the constitution! Parents won't have the freedom of choice as what to do for their child. A wholly State run system. Sounds like communism to me tbh.

whadabouchasir

themont85 wrote: »

. Why not just make the bad ones and bad parents better?

.

Giving extra money to public schools would improve them, it's the only way, also socialism has many advantages but of course the well off don't want to listen.And no I have never been to America reason:money. Don't just assume that just because you can go to America everyone can and also the vast majority of parents in deprived areas have far more problems todeal with , so don't fr a minute suggest that they are bad parents.People don'tchoose to be poor so don't think less of them for it.

SarcasticFairy

whadabouchasir wrote: »

My argument is that if you can afford to send your children to a fee paying school then you should not deprive other schools in disadvantaged areas of funding that they would otherwise from the Government. Also on the point of ordinary people leaving fee paying scools if grants were abolished thus increasing the pessure on public schools is ridiculous. Fee paying schools would not be able to increase their fees that much because if they did then no-one would go to them. As a result of this the standard of education would not be that much higher and so the whole education system would be more balanced.I would also like to ask anyone going to a fee paying school the question, ihave any students in your year dropped out before the leaving and are on the dole? Because I know several.So don't try and justify this plea for funding because an area with 17% unemployment needs it more!

But if the standard of education was on a par, what exactly (besides maybe decent sports equipment) is the benefit of sending your child to a private school? This would no doubt cause an influx of private school students into public schools, putting a strain on both the schools involved and the resources available.

themont85

whadabouchasir wrote: »

Giving extra money to public schools would improve them, it's the only way, also socialism has many advantages but of course the well off don't want to listen.And no I have never been to America reason:money. Don't just assume that just because you can go to America everyone can and also the vast majority of parents in deprived areas have far more problems todeal with , so don't fr a minute suggest that they are bad parents.People don'tchoose to be poor so don't think less of them for it.

Of course it would, but there would be no extra money to give them, more cuts would have to be made. Can you not see that? I read the CAO thread and it seems you want to be a doctor. Well i thought doctors are supposed to look at the consequences when treating a patient. I'll make the analagy because it seems you are completely ignoring the consequences. All you are saying essentially is this. Okay stop the payment, give the money to the disadvantaged. Then you are saying okay it will hurt in the short term but in the long term it will be more 'balanced'. No it won't. Then you are saying all that will help is more money, well no **** sherlock but your method won't get anymore. You seem to have a blinkered prejudice against these schools and areas such as Blackrock as illustrated in your OP on this topic. Chip on your shoulder eh?

Unfortunately bad parenting does come into this in a way. Many don't put the value in education that they should. They allow their kids go truent, then maybe leave school at 16 with no qualifications to work in the likes of Tesco. This happens. Drugs, alcohal are a problem and have to be helped. However, on another note the free sector isn't bad at all, its bad attitudes and other social problems which help ruin it.

dolliemix

themont85 wrote: »

The Government does not give the same funding, that is a lie with no fact behind it. The government pays for in fee paying schools for one teacher for every 20 students, that is it basically. They pay for all the other capital costs, running costs in free schools on top of teachers salaries.


Correct.

Fee paying schools don't get any money from the department. Teachers are paid by the government and thats it. The parents of children in fee-paying schools pay their taxes the same as everybody else so they shoudn't be begruged some form of Government spending on their children's education. Funding for everything else, building maintenance, extra resource staff......even down to the tape recorders which language teachers have to use to facilitate the curriculum are not funded by public funds. Its the money from the parents which keeps fee-paying schools going. All of these thing are provided for in public schools, which is right. If a computer breaks down in a public school - the Govenment funds deal with the problem. If a computer breaks down in a private school, the school pays for it themselves out of parent's money because they won't get any money from the Government. The parents in fee-paying schools pay extra for their children, because they choose to. Management in private schools use these fees to run the school. The computer in the private school will get sorted quicker because they're not waiting on Government bureacracy to receive the letter, to pass on the letter, to review the letter, to revise the letter, to respond to the letter etc.
Private schools are like businesses and the little things get done quicker because they don't have to deal with the departmant for everything!

We live in a democracy why shouldn't people have the right to choose which system their child attends? Yeah, it's unfair that some people will never be able to afford private education but we can't change the fact that there will always be people out there richer than most of us. Private schools are like businesses, to be honest, people invest, and the profits provide better managed facilities for there children. Surely people, who've worked hard for it, should be allowed choose to spend their money how they want to....

whadabouchasir

Everyone's argument seems to be that if private schools were not given money then an influx of private school students would enter the public schools causing additional strain on the government, however ther is one major flaw with this argument, that is currently €90 million is spent on teachers for private schools, even if 99% of private students left the amount of money the public shools would recieve would still be more than the cost of taking in these additional students. Also since fee paying schools are distributed throughout the country no one public school would suffer an influx of private students instead a lot of schools would have a small increase in students and so they would not need extra money from the state to build classrooms ,new facilities.Also I want to do med because I love helping people and if you can't see that your idea is hurting the most margenalsised in our society then thats your loos.

themont85

whadabouchasir wrote: »

Everyone's argument seems to be that if private schools were not given money then an influx of private school students would enter the public schools causing additional strain on the government, however ther is one major flaw with this argument, that is currently €90 million is spent on teachers for private schools, even if 99% of private students left the amount of money the public shools would recieve would still be more than the cost of taking in these additional students. Also since fee paying schools are distributed throughout the country no one public school would suffer an influx of private students instead a lot of schools would have a small increase in students and so they would not need extra money from the state to build classrooms ,new facilities.Also I want to do med because I love helping people and if you can't see that your idea is hurting the most margenalsised in our society then thats your loos.

Haha just think about what your saying. Okay i think its 100m given to provide pay for fee paying schools teachers. If 99% as you say leave the system than the Government would still be paying for those teachers cost(99 million) plus the maintenance, facililities, ancillary costs. Think about it! The govt would still have to pay these teachers costs plus the rest! Your argument is flawed, it would cost far more than 100 million if they came into the free system.

Oh and an influx of fee paying students would cause havoc in certain areas such as South Dublin where half the schools are fee paying. Current free schools in the area would have an influx and a number of the fee paying schools would go free, causing havoc and a huge financial cost.

Ye well done for wanting to do medcine in order to help people but as a doctor you have to think of consequences of what your doing, you are taking a narrow socialist mind on this.

whadabouchasir

But because there would not be a huge influx(South Dublin is an exception) the cost of ancilliary services would be more than made up for by the 100m also it is unlikely that 99% would go to public schools,the true figure would be far less than this. If a completely public system works in pirimary it should also work in secondary, the integartion would also benefit all students.

themont85

whadabouchasir wrote: »

But because there would not be a huge influx(South Dublin is an exception) the cost of ancilliary services would be more than made up for by the 100m also it is unlikely that 99% would go to public schools,the true figure would be far less than this. If a completely public system works in pirimary it should also work in secondary, the integartion would also benefit all students.

How many times does need to be said.

Currently Government pays 100m for fee paying schools.

If half the fee paying students left the system that would reduce the 'savings' to 50 million as because half the parents have taking their kids to free schools 50 million in teachers salaries would be carried over. 50 million wouldn't cover the costs of putting almost 4 % of the current student population through.

There are still private schools in existance for primary education. I think that these schools run completely outside the funding of the Departmant of Education so are of no burden to the state and operate in the system you propose for the secondary sector. There are far less of these types of schools and far less numbers, why? The cost, they are more expensive than than fee paying counterparts. They are far more elitist and kids in these schools would have an advantage over the vast majority of kids(however one thing is that the primary sector in Ireland is very good and better than its secondary counterpart largely due to the govt's responsibilty to primary education first)

sock puppet

whadabouchasir wrote: »

But because there would not be a huge influx(South Dublin is an exception) the cost of ancilliary services would be more than made up for by the 100m also it is unlikely that 99% would go to public schools,the true figure would be far less than this. If a completely public system works in pirimary it should also work in secondary, the integartion would also benefit all students.

A very large one.

cotwold

The argument of government funding in private schools in total bs in my opinion. If they were to withdraw funding of private schools the school fees would increase so greatly, 90% of people sending their children there wouldn't be able to afford them. Without anyone paying for these schools they'd all have to be converted to non-fee paying, thus incurring the gov more cost. I doubt if the population of dublin could support more than 4 fully fee paying schools.

PurpleFistMixer

Fad wrote: »

To be fair, its unlikely you had a huge element of personal choice when it came to 2nd level, parents really make the decision. Also when you start on a secondary school in 1st year, its unlikely you'd be particularly aware of what being pretentious is, so you're talking out of your hat there :pac:

When i was 13 I knew I didn't want to go to a fee paying school. My primary school was a feeder school to Loreto Foxrock and I was damned if I went there.

Piste wrote: »

But that's clearly not the fault of the fee-paying parents, it's the government's fault. If there were no fee-paying schools I can't see how it'd have a positive effect on people born into a lower socio-economic background.

If all schools were public, there would be less segregation between the children of wealthy and poor parents... since they'd be in the same school. They might mix, make friends outside their own "socio-economic bracket", and people might be slightly more tolerant to those who are different to them in that manner. I've unfortunately encountered too many people who have prejudices against "povos" because they've never actually met the people they're slagging off.

themont85 wrote: »

Socially your theory is flawed on many levels. Number 1, everybody is born to different classes and parents wealth so automatically we are already advantaged or disadvantaged in life for many things including education from a young age which the Govt doesn't cater for.

It's possible the OP was going for the angle of "ireland shouldn't be like this", hard to say though.

IMO the important issue is making the public education system good enough that the desire to go private is eliminated.

whadabouchasir

The reverse of this is also true, if we take state funding from the private schools then there will be less of a difference and so there won't be this elitism that exists currently.

themont85

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

When i was 13 I knew I didn't want to go to a fee paying school. My primary school was a feeder school to Loreto Foxrock and I was damned if I went there.


If all schools were public, there would be less segregation between the children of wealthy and poor parents... since they'd be in the same school. They might mix, make friends outside their own "socio-economic bracket", and people might be slightly more tolerant to those who are different to them in that manner. I've unfortunately encountered too many people who have prejudices against "povos" because they've never actually met the people they're slagging off.


It's possible the OP was going for the angle of "ireland shouldn't be like this", hard to say though.

IMO the important issue is making the public education system good enough that the desire to go private is eliminated.

You will never be able to elimanate a parents preference for private schooling. There will always be a demand for it for a vareity of reasons. They can certainlty reduce the numbers attending by improving the current standard but you will never 'elimanate' private schools completely, that is aspirational.

whadabouchasir wrote: »

The reverse of this is also true, if we take state funding from the private schools then there will be less of a difference and so there won't be this elitism that exists currently.

By making current public schools worse and the private ones even better. Yep thats really gonna stomp out elitism:rolleyes: