Should state subsidisation of Irish private schools continue?

Rebelheart

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

brianthebard wrote: »

Most (I'm assuming all) parents are expected to 'top up' their children's schools funds because there is usually a shortfall. If the government took the private school subsidy away from them then it could be used to at least partially plug this gap.

Excellent point.

The TUI made the same point very strongly here.

sagat2

Rebelheart wrote: »

Keep going ...:rolleyes:

So you highlighted what you liked/didn't like and ignored the rest?

brianthebard

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

melekalikimaka wrote: »

and just because the parents of private school students are 'precieved' as being rich, they should foot the full bill?

No. Because they are 'perceived' to have chosen to take their children out of the state education system they have abdicated their right to state funded education. Simples no?

Did you ever think parents maybe send the children there so the children have better opportunities, better facilities and smaller classes, I know alot of families that gto keep kids in private education for this reason. Its terriblily ignorant of people thinking its all ok to drop the funding, and the private schools need it more, the government is obliged to pay per head an amount for education, if parents want to top up this amount to ensure the education of their child, so be it

Yeah....You're not going to have much luck convincing me that its ok to have a two tier education system which simultaneously takes money away from the state schools. But good luck with that.

Hank_Jones

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

They certainly shouldn't be giving money to these schools.
The schools obviously don't operate under the power of the state, so I don't see why they should be given funding.
There's a public primary school down my way that is in bit with prefabs that are about 30 years old being used to house about half of classes.
They were in bits when I went there 20 years ago, so I can only imagine what they are like now..

melekalikimaka

brianthebard wrote: »

No. Because they are 'perceived' to have chosen to take their children out of the state education system they have abdicated their right to state funded education. Simples no?

its still state education, merely parent subsidised

brianthebard wrote: »

Yeah....You're not going to have much luck convincing me that its ok to have a two tier education system which simultaneously takes money away from the state schools. But good luck with that.

it does not take money from state school, the law applies to every child, not just public school children, that would be government discrimination to children.

Rebelheart

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Hank_Jones wrote: »

There's a public primary school down my way that is in bit with prefabs that are about 30 years old being used to house about half of classes.
They were in bits when I went there 20 years ago, so I can only imagine what they are like now..

And this disgusts me most of all as it's repeated across the state. There are thousands upon thousands of Irish pupils in classrooms like this while the government is giving over €100 million to depoliticise the mé féiner parents who send their children to fee-paying schools. Imagine the changes that €100 million would make to state schools. It's truly immoral.

Future generations will look back in shame and disgust at this and wonder why none of us shouted 'Stop!'.

sagat2

brianthebard wrote: »

No. Because they are 'perceived' to have chosen to take their children out of the state education system they have abdicated their right to state funded education. Simples no?

In that case shouldn't those same parents stop subsidising state schools?

Rebelheart

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

melekalikimaka wrote: »

it does not take money from state school, the law applies to every child, not just public school children, that would be government discrimination to children.

It does take money from state schools. If the state were not subsidising non-state schools, that money would have to be invested in state schools. There is no rational reason why this state should be handing over money to support schools which they do not own, but which are instead largely owned by private religious institutions.

landsleaving

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Rebelheart wrote: »

And this disgusts me most of all as it's repeated across the state. There are thousands upon thousands of Irish pupils in classrooms like this while the government is giving over €100 million to depoliticise the mé féiner parents who send their children to fee-paying schools. Imagine the changes that €100 million would make to state schools. It's truly immoral.

Future generations will look back in shame and disgust at this and wonder why none of us shout!ed 'Stop'.

What's the point when the people you need to listen have their kids in these schools?

brianthebard

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

melekalikimaka wrote: »

its still state education, merely parent subsidised

If you want to play semantics go ahead, but you're the only one convinced that private schools should be considered state education. All schools as I previously mentioned are parent subsidised to a degree, so there is clearly more to the private schools than that.

it does not take money from state school, the law applies to every child, not just public school children, that would be government discrimination to children.

Obviously the money could be spent on actual state schools and thus it is being taken from them. If you want to believe otherwise that's fine.

themont85

Alessandra Jolly Pekinese wrote: »

Ha,your having a laugh.

During my time in a private school we had to do most classes in prefabs while waiting for permanant structures,the place was a kip.No doubt you have never even been on the grounds of a private school and your argument is based on the assumption that the facilties are great.

They are still waiting for government funding and im out of school 4 years.
Tbh I dont know what the fees paid for because if they had been used solely by the school then the building would be finished because they would have paid for it.

They dont pay for the teachers because Im pretty sure the government pays for them.

So I have no idea what the fees cover.

I was in the same school as you I believe from reading the rugby forum. The school I think is going it alone now and is being built at the minute (at least it looks like that from my car) as the Government are a joke at providing funding to both public and private schools from building works.

For the record I disagree with the Government providing millions for new buildings, the major reason that these schools stayed out of free education is that they all had long term building loans in the 60s and needed the money. Many of these schools charged higher fees than normal second level schools to fund this but even still when the free education Act was introduced the Government who hadn't planned for it (read all about Donnagh O'Malley) left a massive funding shortfall. The schools would have got 4 times less than they were getting before and many would have closed. Many schools like Gonzaga thought about going comprhensive but simply couldn't afford to at the time.

Schools like Blackrock, Andrews and CBC have applied for money for building costs, I disagree with this, I don't disagree with paying a minimum ratio of teachers though as per the 100 million cost.

I don't think some people understand how much it costs to run a school outside of the teacher costs. Firstly, the state pay a ratio of teachers which was always a bit less than in state schools, that has been further reduced now since the October 2008 budget. Down to 80 million I believe from this year. So the private schools have to obviousely cover this shortfall which takes a heap of funding, thats before they start cutting even further the ratio and providing extra subjects to make it worthwhile for a parent to send them there. Then there is the capital costs on top of that. Caretakers, Secretarys, cleaning costs, general maintanence, sports coaches and many other things all cost a **** load, that is what a lot of the money goes into. I would guess the religous orders take a few quid from these schools too for their missionary work and the orders in general. Thats where school fees go.

If we abolish this subsidy we will see a few things. More Institue of Education type facilities which cater for the Leaving Cert and will hoover up some of the best teachers from the state, which the IoE already does to a certain extent. We will have a big divide in what teachers earn in each sector, we will see what the TUI think of that if it happens. We would also see more 'elite' type schools, less fee paying schools overall, but more of the English style public schools of which we have very few which compare.

Rebelheart

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

TheZohan wrote: »

+1

If these private schools didn't exist the State would still end up funding the students and their education.

With the important difference being that the €100 million in question would be invested in property owned by the Irish state, not property owned by private companies (usually religious orders).

The entire state education system would be radically changed with that injection of money. Instead, the state is promoting and ensuring we continue having a fully-fledged sectarian education system. Not to mention this archaic single-sex system - an abomination if ever the Irish education system has had one. Aside from Britain, is there any other country in Europe where schools exist for a single sex?

With a few noble exceptions, we are still in the dark ages when it comes to the structure of the Irish education system.

Rented Mule

I think it's pretty easy to figure out who went to public school in this thread.

Dudess

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Rented Mule wrote: »

I think it's pretty easy to figure out who went to public school in this thread.

Why do you say that? My siblings went to private school - they're not keen on sending their kids to private school at all though.

Rebelheart

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

landsleaving wrote: »

What's the point when the people you need to listen have their kids in these schools?

The point is that in years to come when people look back on Ireland and say "why did society just ignore this huge injustice", the people here who are defending this system cannot claim ignorance and shift the blame on to some other body.

This unjust system is maintained by the Irish state because there are too many people blindly supporting it no matter what. Sounds familiar? You'd be right.

Hank_Jones

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Rented Mule wrote: »

I think it's pretty easy to figure out who went to public school in this thread.

I would also like to know about this comment.

P.S. I did say that I went to public school....is that what you are referring to Sherlock?

Rebelheart

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Rented Mule wrote: »

I think it's pretty easy to figure out who went to public school in this thread.

Judging by the poor spelling and grammar of those who claim to have gone to "fee-paying" schools, I'll safely say you're not talking about educational standards.

Pete4779

ejmaztec wrote: »

If they can't survive without public funding, they shouldn't exist.

Good idea. And if the state schools can't survive without the millions in taxes being paid by the people living in the areas that have those private schools, then they shouldn't exist either.

You have no entitlement to other people's income. End this socialist crap. People sending kids to private schools, pay multitides more in taxes paid for those majority of people who are net beneficiaries from the state. They pay for their own kids teachers in the private school, and also several other teachers in your local prefab kip.

Rebelheart

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Pete4779 wrote: »

You have no entitlement to other people's income. End this socialist crap.

Ahem - and would that be corporate socialism or welfare socialism you're raging against, Adam Smith?

Let me guess ....

dognextdoor

Rebelheart wrote: »

The point is that in years to come when people look back on Ireland and say "why did society just ignore this huge injustice", the people here who are defending this system cannot claim ignorance and shift the blame on to some other body.

This unjust system is maintained by the Irish state because there are too many people blindly supporting it no matter what. Sounds familiar? You'd be right.

Its hardly an injustice, these kids can do the JC and LC just the same as fee paying school kids.

Alot of jelous types here. Blackrock college wasn't a palace inside when I did summer camps there, my fee paying school was stuck if a 1950s building waiting for a new one which is only been built now and I got no use off yet payed for it. Now thats an injustice you socialist beans but at least I know my kids will use it when I send my son to the glourious alma mater. I'm glad we put a higher fence up so you lot couldn't get in, keep the riff raff away from the rugby pitch for as long as possible.

Dudess

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Pete4779 wrote: »

End this socialist crap.

Exactly - discontinue state funds for private schools.

brianthebard

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Pete4779 wrote: »

Good idea. And if the state schools can't survive without the millions in taxes being paid by the people living in the areas that have those private schools, then they shouldn't exist either.

You have no entitlement to other people's income.

I don't think you understand how taxation works.

Dudess

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

dognextdoor wrote: »

Alot of jelous types here.

Really? Based on?

Blackrock college wasn't a palace inside when I did summer camps there, my fee paying school was stuck if a 1950s building waiting for a new one which is only been built now and I got no use off yet payed for it.

Well then it was hardly worth paying the fees so.

Rebelheart

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Pete4779 wrote: »

They pay for their own kids teachers in the private school.

In fact, they do not. The Irish state pays for the teachers in fee-paying schools on precisely the same basis as it pays for the teachers in state schools. If a fee-paying school wants to divide a class of, say, 28 students into two classes of 14 students each then it will have to fund the employment of the extra teacher.

If you have details on the taxes given by people who send their children to these schools you probably should at least reference them. Otherwise, don't bother making claims for the alleged "contributions" to the state's revenues of parents who send their children to fee-paying schools.

Meanwhile, I want all my taxes which subsidised companies, tax breaks, tax exemptions, tuition refunds and much, much else back ....

Oh, not forgetting NAMA and other state policies which are designed to keep your property prices artifically high and rip off poorer people who want to buy houses at their real market value - there's a concept.

landsleaving

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

dognextdoor wrote: »

I'm glad we put a higher fence up so you lot couldn't get in, keep the riff raff away from the rugby pitch for as long as possible.

They thought you well there I see, those are some wonderful values.

Dudess

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

It's true though - I'm gutted I was kept off the rugby pitch.

The_Minister

landsleaving wrote: »

They thought you well there I see, those are some wonderful values.

On the other hand you're public education has served you well.:p

landsleaving

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

The_Minister wrote: »

On the other hand you're public education has served you well.:p

I don't remember getting that wrong...

Tocuhé sir.

landsleaving

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

The_Minister wrote: »

On the other hand you're public education has served you well.:p

OH WAIT!!!

Dudess

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

LOL

Don't fuk with Muphry :pac:

sink

I think I see a compromise.

Private schools could stop receiving state funds, however all money spent on private education should be tax free and tax deductible. After all fair is fair, If a parent opts not to send their child to a state funded school they shouldn't have to contribute to the state school system.

Piste

dvpower wrote: »

I wouldn't have a problem with this as long as it is the parents choice. So they shouldn't be allowed to refuse entry to a child if the parent chooses not to pay extra.
If you are getting public funds you should have to be open to the public.

How would that work though? Should the kids whose parents arent paying fees be excluded from trips and sports and extra subjects that their peers' parents are paying for?

themont85

Rebelheart wrote: »

In fact, they do not. The Irish state pays for the teachers in fee-paying schools on precisely the same basis as it pays for the teachers in state schools. If a fee-paying school wants to divide a class of, say, 28 students into two classes of 14 students each then it will have to fund the employment of the extra teacher.

If you have details on the taxes given by people who send their children to these schools you probably should at least reference them. Otherwise, don't bother making claims for the alleged "contributions" to the state's revenues of parents who send their children to fee-paying schools.

Meanwhile, I want all my taxes which subsidised companies, tax breaks, tax exemptions, tuition refunds and much, much else back ....

Oh, not forgetting NAMA and other state policies which are designed to keep your property prices artifically high and rip off poorer people who want to buy houses at their real market value - there's a concept.

No they don't pay them on the same basis.

Funding changes could make it tougher to achieve good results for schools across the country in all sorts of circumstances. Budget cuts mean that instead of funding for one teacher for every 18 students, state-run schools now receive funding for one teacher for every 19 students. Fee-paying schools have seen their entitlement cut to one teacher for every 20 students.


Sunday Times Parent Power survey 2010.

They do save the state money though. Under the free education act we are all entitled to free second level. If every single person in the fee pating/private sector went back to the free sector the standards would drop dramitically unless the governemt upped taxes. 8% go to fee paying/private instututions, send them back into the free sector and see what happens. If your argument is well then a good percentage will stay in the private one then their fees will explode in cost and we will have a truely elite system.

Can I ask you these questions.

What is your opinions of the state funding community halls, fitness centres (as some councils are), Dublin bus ect. These are all subsidies yet most of these properties still have to charge fees to get in to survive. Doesn't that put a barrier on what people can use it?

Rebelheart

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

The_Minister wrote: »

On the other hand you're public education has served you well.:p

I just hope Mommy and Daddy made better investments in the Celtic Tiger days than your own education.

Rebelheart

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

landsleaving wrote: »

OH WAIT!!!

Priceless. Egg. Face. Everywhere. Would people ever read those spelling and grammar threads on After Hours? (they are actually quite helpful)

'Your' and 'you're' are not the same ... 'there' and 'their' are not the same ... 'its' and 'it's' are not the same ....

menoscemo

themont85 wrote: »

No they don't pay them on the same basis.

Funding changes could make it tougher to achieve good results for schools across the country in all sorts of circumstances. Budget cuts mean that instead of funding for one teacher for every 18 students, state-run schools now receive funding for one teacher for every 19 students. Fee-paying schools have seen their entitlement cut to one teacher for every 20 students.


Sunday Times Parent Power survey 2010.

Also the state give non fee paying school a capitation grant for every pupil to go towards maintenance building etc which fee paying schools do not get (about €500 per pupil I believe). They also do not pay for support teachers or secretaries in fee paying schools, so the saving is significant.

I have nothing against the idea of eradicating grants to fee paying schools, just I feel the argument that it would save the stae money is completely a red herring.

Also if the state could just ofer a decent level of secondary education to all pupils this argument wouldn't be happening- even a non fee paying school often has to raise it's own funds if it needs a new building. This is wrong. Of course fixing it would cost a hell of a lot more money to the state which is why the status quo will remain.

Fratton Fred

RayM wrote: »

I'd much rather see that €100million (and a whole lot more) go to schools that genuinely need it. You know, the total shit-holes that have 40 kids crammed into prefabricated, damp, rat-infested classrooms, as opposed to the schools with their own private swimming pools, low class numbers and well-equipped music rooms.

It seems a bit shit (actually, it's totally unjustifiable) that parents of children going to disadvantaged schools are effectively subsidising the privileged few, who can afford to give their kids "that all-important head-start" in life.

As for banning private schools - perhaps if there was a bit of genuine equality in this country, and the rich and powerful had no choice but to send their kids to state run schools along with everyone else, the general quality of them would improve very quickly, thus negating the "need" for private education.

Maybe wealthy people should sell their expensive houses and everyone should live in a three bed semi, thereby all people are equal

Dudess wrote: »

Why do you say that? My siblings went to private school - they're not keen on sending their kids to private school at all though.

It is the other way around for me and my brother, although he lives in London and the difference between private and state run schools is very big there.

Mike 1972

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

The overwhelming majority schools in the country are privately owned, fee paying and state subsidised

Its just that some schools call their fees "Voluntary" parental contributuions

dotsman

This thread is just more socialist, steal-from-anyone-with-money bull$hit.

Private schools are not "subsidised". The teachers who teach in these schools, as with every other school, are paid for by the Department of Education.

With the Private model, parents pay fees to greatly subsidise the public offering, with the intention of providing a better school environment for their children. These parents, on average are also paying a hell of a lot more tax than the parents of public school goers.

Thus, these parents are not just paying a whole load more to have their children educated, they are also paying to educate other parent's children.

You want to remove public funding for the teachers in Private schools?
Fine, go ahead. But in the interests of being fair, you will also need to fund the public schools in a fair manner. Thus, they receive no funding from ordinary taxes (and the top rate of tax is reduced to reflect this). Instead, parents of public school goers pay a levy to fund all public schools. Parents of private school goers are exempt from this levy, but pay for the entire costs of the education of their child. Thus you have a very fair model (except, of course, the results will be the complete collapse of the public school system, but oh well, you're the one who wanted to rock the boat).

Dudess

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

dotsman wrote: »

This thread is just more socialist, steal-from-anyone-with-money bull$hit.

Oh noez - socialist! I'd prefer stealing (if that's what you want to call it) from those with money to stealing from those who don't have money tbh.

With the Private model, parents pay fees to greatly subsidise the public offering, with the intention of providing a better school environment for their children.

What are they paying for? There are state schools with equally good facilities as private schools. Two mentions of run-down private schools on this thread, and a run-down private school in Cork comes to my mind.
The only advantage of private schools it seems is smaller classes (and whether that's an advantage or not is subjective), other than that, nowt.

goose2005

Dudess wrote: »

I don't think private schools should get a cent from the state - they are not a necessity.

It's also naive in the case of private schools to believe "if you pay extra for it, it'll be better" - not necessarily true at all. First of all, teachers are the same anywhere - there aren't any extra qualifications required to teach in private schools, secondly, there are plenty of state schools with superb facilities.

But private schools can pay higher salaries, thus they have many people applying for interviews and can headhunt the best teachers.

brianthebard

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

dotsman wrote: »

This thread is just more socialist, steal-from-anyone-with-money bull$hit.

Private schools are not "subsidised". [...]

With the Private model, parents pay fees to greatly subsidise the public offering,

So are they or aren't they? Your post was just more capitalist, give-me-the-biggest-share-of-pie bull$hit. See what I did there?

goose2005 wrote: »

But private schools can pay higher salaries, thus they have many people applying for interviews and can headhunt the best teachers.

A further example of how private schools construct a two tier model in which the less wealthy are worse off. All the more reason to abolish them or the their govt funding.

philologos

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

dotsman wrote: »

Private schools are not "subsidised". The teachers who teach in these schools, as with every other school, are paid for by the Department of Education.

Actually, I went to one of the 21 CofI ethos listed schools in that article, they received funding from the State for construction projects that took place during my time there and this was common knowledge.

RayM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe wealthy people should sell their expensive houses and everyone should live in a three bed semi, thereby all people are equal

No, better still... let wealthy people keep their expensive houses, but force the less well-off to contribute towards their upkeep.

Yes, that's right - my straw-man is bigger than yours.

dotsman

Dudess wrote: »

Oh noez - socialist! I'd prefer stealing (if that's what you want to call it) from those with money to stealing from those who don't have money tbh.

But nobody is stealing from those who "don't have money". This whole thread is trying to make out that the "transfer of wealth" is from the less well off to the more well off which is complete bull$hit. Do you not agree, or do you honestly believe that a low/non income earner is contributing more to the system than a high income earner?

Dudess wrote: »

What are they paying for?

What does it matter? They can spend their money any way they like? It's their money! Why would you want to know about it other than the usual begrudgery?

Dudess wrote: »

There are state schools with equally good facilities as private schools.

Agreed. On top of paying for their own children's education, the parents of fee-paying schools, through much higher taxes are also improving the schools for the less well-off.

Dudess wrote: »

Two mentions of run-down private schools on this thread, and a run-down private school in Cork comes to my mind.

Come now, how long since you left school and you're still bitter about Scoil Mhuire girls? The fact of the matter is that, even with $hite facilities (one of the most run down school buildings in the country), on average, a scoil mhuire girl who graduated the same year as you is more likely to be earning more than the average girl from your school. She is more likely to be better educated. She is more likely to be career focused and ambitious. She is less likely to have a criminal record. She is less likely to be welfare-dependant. Does this apply to all scoil mhuire girls? No, just the majority, but what the parents are paying for is to increase the chances for their daughters.

Dudess wrote: »

The only advantage of private schools it seems is smaller classes (and whether that's an advantage or not is subjective), other than that, nowt.

Wrong, the single biggest factor is the standards and the reputation of the school. It's the one biggest thing that can't really be measured and nobody seems to talk about.

The fact is, regardless of fee-paying or not, the best school for a child of average to high academic ability, with ambitious, educated parents is the one with highest concentration of similar students. If said student goes to a "good" school (regardless of fees etc), they will most likely befriend students who are also ambitious and hard-working, and are less likely to fall in with the dreaded "wrong crowd". There were lots of bright kids in my primary school. About a third of my primary school went to private schools. In University, I didn't meet a single one of my primary school mates who didn't go down the road of private education. Yet I couldn't walk through campus without bumping into one of my secondary school classmates.

The senior years of my secondary school were very simple (and this is what the parents are paying for). It wasn't a case of "are you going to college". It was a case of "what course are you going for in college". The level of ambition (and in some cases, rivalry) was ridiculously high and was completely different to the experiences of my friends who went to the local public schools. Of the 120 students in my Leaving Cert year, I can only think of 6 who didn't go on to University. Of the rest of us (and almost 12 years on, I still meet many of them regularly), many are doctors, dentists, teachers, solicitors, engineers, accountants etc. And that's it. That is what the parents are hoping for when they hand over those fees.

desertcircus

Thanks for the laughs, all those who described as "socialist" a suggestion that a public subsidy be curtailed.

All joking aside, though...

1. Seriously, ranting about "socialism" is grossly inept straw-man nonsense. This is a considered discussion about the funding model for certain second level schools. If you really, really hate the idea of progressive taxation, then go form an anarcho-libertarian commune and stop reading this thread - it'll only get you wound up.

2. Did someone say that 55 schools were getting €100m a year? By my maths, that's about two million a school (let's not worry overly about the difference), which, assuming 600 pupils per school, means it's about €3,300 per student. So let's do the maths on whether these kids are saving the state money by not being in the state system. At one student per twenty children, that's a hiring budget of nearly seventy K per teacher. Sure, there's other costs in there, but I strongly suspect economies of scale would trim those fairly sharply. In other words, if the subsidy was redirected to state schools, and if EVERY SINGLE FEE-PAYING SCHOOL shut down, the existing system would probably manage. Of course, not all the schools would close, so really it'd work out better than this model.

3. Education for a child isn't the same as a cheeseburger or a bottle of whiskey. It determines to a large extent the life outcomes of the children in question. Parents being able to send their kids to private school indirectly disadvantages every child in a state school; it gives those children an unfair advantage in working towards college, grooms them to grow up as people at the top of the pyramid and encourages the growth of a tight social network which to a large extent persists through life. What percentage of the population are private school graduates? What percentage of High Court judges, senior politicians, investment bankers, senior civil servants are private school graduates? Until you have an alternative explanation for the disparity (which also explains why parents spend a fortune to no apparent effect), we have to conclude the advantage comes from private schools. And the state shouldn't be subsidising a system which tends to make progress in life far easier for those with wealthy or dedicated parents - these are children we're talking about; they all deserve an equal shot.

Rebelheart

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

desertcircus wrote: »

Thanks for the laughs, all those who described as "socialist" a suggestion that a public subsidy be curtailed.

All joking aside, though...

1. Seriously, ranting about "socialism" is grossly inept straw-man nonsense. This is a considered discussion about the funding model for certain second level schools. If you really, really hate the idea of progressive taxation, then go form an anarcho-libertarian commune and stop reading this thread - it'll only get you wound up.

2. Did someone say that 55 schools were getting €100m a year? By my maths, that's about two million a school (let's not worry overly about the difference), which, assuming 600 pupils per school, means it's about €3,300 per student. So let's do the maths on whether these kids are saving the state money by not being in the state system. At one student per twenty children, that's a hiring budget of nearly seventy K per teacher. Sure, there's other costs in there, but I strongly suspect economies of scale would trim those fairly sharply. In other words, if the subsidy was redirected to state schools, and if EVERY SINGLE FEE-PAYING SCHOOL shut down, the existing system would probably manage. Of course, not all the schools would close, so really it'd work out better than this model.

3. Education for a child isn't the same as a cheeseburger or a bottle of whiskey. It determines to a large extent the life outcomes of the children in question. Parents being able to send their kids to private school indirectly disadvantages every child in a state school; it gives those children an unfair advantage in working towards college, grooms them to grow up as people at the top of the pyramid and encourages the growth of a tight social network which to a large extent persists through life. What percentage of the population are private school graduates? What percentage of High Court judges, senior politicians, investment bankers, senior civil servants are private school graduates? Until you have an alternative explanation for the disparity (which also explains why parents spend a fortune to no apparent effect), we have to conclude the advantage comes from private schools. And the state shouldn't be subsidising a system which tends to make progress in life far easier for those with wealthy or dedicated parents - these are children we're talking about; they all deserve an equal shot.

Post of the thread.

sink

desertcircus wrote: »

3. Education for a child isn't the same as a cheeseburger or a bottle of whiskey. It determines to a large extent the life outcomes of the children in question. Parents being able to send their kids to private school indirectly disadvantages every child in a state school; it gives those children an unfair advantage in working towards college, grooms them to grow up as people at the top of the pyramid and encourages the growth of a tight social network which to a large extent persists through life. What percentage of the population are private school graduates? What percentage of High Court judges, senior politicians, investment bankers, senior civil servants are private school graduates? Until you have an alternative explanation for the disparity (which also explains why parents spend a fortune to no apparent effect), we have to conclude the advantage comes from private schools. And the state shouldn't be subsidising a system which tends to make progress in life far easier for those with wealthy or dedicated parents - these are children we're talking about; they all deserve an equal shot.

The reality of the situation is that cutting public funding to private schools isn't going to be the end of private schools. It will just push the farther out of reach of more families, creating an even smaller more powerful elite. Banning private schools won't work either because the mega wealthy can afford to send their children abroad to any school in the world.

Rebelheart

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

desertcircus wrote: »

Did someone say that 55 schools were getting €100m a year? By my maths, that's about two million a school (let's not worry overly about the difference), which, assuming 600 pupils per school, means it's about €3,300 per student. So let's do the maths on whether these kids are saving the state money by not being in the state system. At one student per twenty children, that's a hiring budget of nearly seventy K per teacher. Sure, there's other costs in there, but I strongly suspect economies of scale would trim those fairly sharply. In other words, if the subsidy was redirected to state schools, and if EVERY SINGLE FEE-PAYING SCHOOL shut down, the existing system would probably manage. Of course, not all the schools would close, so really it'd work out better than this model.

According to The Irish Times in January 2009:

"There are 56* fee-charging second-level schools in the State of which 21 are Protestant, two inter-denominational, one Jewish and the rest Catholic. In all, the State pays the salaries of close to 1,500 teachers in private schools."

*According to The Irish Times on 29 September 2009, which I linked to earlier, there were 55 fee-paying schools in the State so presumably one private school closed between January and September 2009.

dotsman

desertcircus wrote: »

Thanks for the laughs, all those who described as "socialist" a suggestion that a public subsidy be curtailed.

I'm glad you are amused. Perhaps you should read up on the concept of socialism. There's some hilarious ones there.

Now just to be clear, are you for or against the current subsidising of less well off children or not?

desertcircus wrote: »

1. Seriously, ranting about "socialism" is grossly inept straw-man nonsense. This is a considered discussion about the funding model for certain second level schools. If you really, really hate the idea of progressive taxation, then go form an anarcho-libertarian commune and stop reading this thread - it'll only get you wound up.

Where's the straw man? That phrase has to be the laziest way to avoid answering some hard truths. I don't mind progressive taxation. I understand it's necessity. However, I am against double taxation. You can't have it both ways. Tax the $hit out of people and then deny them public funding.

desertcircus wrote: »

2. Did someone say that 55 schools were getting €100m a year? By my maths, that's about two million a school (let's not worry overly about the difference), which, assuming 600 pupils per school, means it's about €3,300 per student. So let's do the maths on whether these kids are saving the state money by not being in the state system. At one student per twenty children, that's a hiring budget of nearly seventy K per teacher. Sure, there's other costs in there, but I strongly suspect economies of scale would trim those fairly sharply. In other words, if the subsidy was redirected to state schools, and if EVERY SINGLE FEE-PAYING SCHOOL shut down, the existing system would probably manage. Of course, not all the schools would close, so really it'd work out better than this model.

What I would love to see is the cost per student of public schools. I'd imagine it would be a bit higher. But then again, let's not let the full story get in the way of things.

desertcircus wrote: »

3. Education for a child isn't the same as a cheeseburger or a bottle of whiskey. It determines to a large extent the life outcomes of the children in question. Parents being able to send their kids to private school indirectly disadvantages every child in a state school; it gives those children an unfair advantage in working towards college, grooms them to grow up as people at the top of the pyramid and encourages the growth of a tight social network which to a large extent persists through life. What percentage of the population are private school graduates? What percentage of High Court judges, senior politicians, investment bankers, senior civil servants are private school graduates? Until you have an alternative explanation for the disparity (which also explains why parents spend a fortune to no apparent effect), we have to conclude the advantage comes from private schools. And the state shouldn't be subsidising a system which tends to make progress in life far easier for those with wealthy or dedicated parents - these are children we're talking about; they all deserve an equal shot.

Again, the complete socialist model. If someone, god forbid, succeeds, or is lucky or breaks from the mould in any way, then we must stop that. Maintain the herd at it's most basic common level.