Should state subsidisation of Irish private schools continue?

Joey the lips

i dont respond to public polls however I agree with "The Zohan"

Rebelheart

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

Hank_Jones wrote: »

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?

hehe.;)

Rebelheart

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

Joey the lips wrote: »

I agree with "The Zohan"

Why?

Joey the lips

The_Minister wrote: »

My understanding is that they get as much as public schools do, not any more.

They use this money as normal, to provide the basics, then use the fees to improve the facilities at the schools, to make sure the kids get as good an education as possible.

The state should finance each school to a minimum level, and if parents want to pay extra after that, it's their choice.

TheZohan wrote: »

+1

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

You ask me

Rebelheart wrote: »

Why?

Above.. thats why. We would ultimatly end up paying there education. This way we are asking them to part fund it.... A bit like a public private partnership

desertcircus

Dotsman: socialism is commonly defined as "the ownership of the means of production by the workers", not "refusing to subsidise fee-paying schools by reducing the funds going to state schools.

Second: this denies parents nothing - they're entitled to send their kids to the state school down the road.

Third: double taxation happens all the time (you pay VAT on what you buy with PAYE wages), but ending a subsidy isn't the same as taxation anyway.

Fourth: your reading of the last part is beyond obtuse and makes me wonder if you read the exact opposite to what I wrote. I advocated a policy that maximises every child's opportunity to excel and tries to remove parental funding as a determinant of how far you get in life, and you declare I'm "maintaining the herd". That's just weird. How is it "maintaining the herd" to try to make sure that the people at the top faced as much fair competition as possible on their way up?

Rebelheart

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

The_Minister wrote: »

They use this money as normal, to provide the basics, then use the fees to improve the facilities at the schools,

The_Minister wrote: »

The 'finest of facilities' are paid for by the fees of the parents.

menoscemo wrote: »

The state pay a certain number of teachers (less per student than in state schools), the secretary and the principal. They do not pay for cleaning maintenance, buildings etc,

It is untrue to imply or claim that fee-paying schools are not subsidised by the state for their building and maintenance projects. From The Irish Times on 20 January 2009:


"New figures show that €99 million was spent on paying teachers’ salaries in the fee-paying sector.

The Department of Education says a further €2.1 million was spent on capital or building works in 17 fee-paying schools in 2008."



That is - and let us be very clear about this - the Irish State gives millions of euro per annum to build and rebuild property on private grounds, property which then belongs to private organisations (usually religious institutions). This is happening at a time when students in public schools across Ireland cannot even get an SNA (Special Needs Assistant) to help them.

When religious institutions are finally removed from involvement in mainstream Irish education, will the Irish state have to pay the market price to buy back school buildings, the construction of which it funded in the first place?

No prizes for guessing who's getting the short straw in this situation.

philologos

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

Rebelheart: There seems to be no plan to completely remove ethos based education from Ireland so I think it's more "if" rather than "when", just plans to reduce the amount of RC faith schools. As for the Church of Ireland, Methodists or any other group, I have no reason to believe that they will be removed in the near future.

Rebelheart

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

Joey the lips wrote: »

We would ultimatly end up paying there education. This way we are asking them to part fund it.... A bit like a public private partnership

Alas, it doesn't work like that. If that €100 million were kept within the state-owned schools to build state-owned schools and invest in human and physical resources under the state's control it would be infinitely more sensible. Instead, under the present system that €100 million is taken out of the state's schools and used to fund and develop schools which are owned by private religious institutions. That is a horridly bad mismanagement of €100 million.

That €100 million would give huge power to the Department of Education to get greater economies of scale from builders and suppliers in terms of lower school construction and technology costs.

Rebelheart

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

Jakkass wrote: »

Rebelheart: There seems to be no plan to completely remove ethos based education from Ireland so I think it's more "if" rather than "when", just plans to reduce the amount of RC faith schools. As for the Church of Ireland, Methodists or any other group, I have no reason to believe that they will be removed in the near future.

I agree, Jakkass, which is why I placed the word 'mainstream' in there. There will most likely be schools run by religious institutions for the foreseeable future. However, whereas they are still 'mainstream' now in terms of numbers, I would be very, very surprised if there is anything like the current degree of support for such schools in the same foreseeable future. There have been an awful number of nails put into their coffin since the early 1990s.

The withdrawal of religious institutions from mainstream education is already happening.

philologos

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

Rebelheart wrote: »

I agree, Jakkass, which is why I placed the word 'mainstream' in there. There will most likely be schools run by religious institutions for the foreseeable future. However, whereas they are still 'mainstream' now in terms of numbers, I would be very, very surprised if there is anything like the current degree of support for such schools in the same foreseeable future. There have been an awful number of nails put into their coffin since the early 1990s.

The withdrawal of religious institutions from mainstream education is already happening.

O'Keefe's plans are to reduce the number of RC schools to 60%. They will be still in the mainstream, but there will be more alternatives for those who do not wish to have their children go to an RC school.

I don't agree that it is so much a withdrawal, but just a widening of the spectrum.

hooradiation

dotsman wrote: »

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.

aww, bless. You think that's an accurate reflection of reality.
You are just so *adorable*

Dudess

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

dotsman wrote: »

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?

Money that could go towards state schools is being diverted to private schools, which aren't a necessity.

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?

No, it's definitely not "the usual begrudgery" - that's mostly a myth. I personally don't see the advantage of a school being fee-paying.

Come now, how long since you left school and you're still bitter about Scoil Mhuire girls?

LOL - that chestnut. I fail to see where I said I'm "bitter" towards Scoil Mhuire girls, but decide that if you must.:D (Although they have nicer uniforms to be fair). That school is lacking in facilities, therefore it wasn't a logical choice for me.

ProperDeadly

Let's take the scenario where the government decides to completely withdraw funding from private schools, leaving each private school to fund itself completely.

The reality is that the school fees would double. Many parents work extremely hard to be able to afford the 4/5 k that private schools typically charge. If they were forced to pay the 8-10 k ( perhaps double/triple this for when siblings are taken into account), then the simple fact is , that most parents would simply not be able to afford the higher fees, and have to move their children to a state school.

This happening for a few students would be no big deal, but were it to happen country-wide there would be a huge increase in numbers in state schools, more teachers would be needed in these state school, so the government would have to spend money to pay for them . Added to the cost of increasing the size of schools (new extensions, pre-fabs, etc), it really seems pointless, and only seems to be a re-allocation of this €100 million as opposed to saving it.

I have no problem in admitting I went to a private school, and would 100% send my kids to one too. Anybody I know who had a private education feels exactly the same way. I genuinely feel that the overall education (not just Leaving Cert results) is better, and that the oppurtunities afforded to me were far greater than had I been sent to the local state school.

The reality is that parents of private school children pay taxes, so have every right to avail of the government support for private schools.

themont85

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.

Your last point is the entire reason that most people who give out about private schools are discrediited.

Whats wrong with doing the best you can or being 'groomed to be top of the pyramid' as you put it? One of the major reasons we have schools that don't do as well is because of this attitude. Why don't non fee paying schools have this do the best you can attitude? For the record I never heard that once in school, neither did most of my friends in similar schools. However, there is an expectancy in south Dublin where most of these schools are to do well, this is why non fee paying schools such as Colaiste Eoin and Iosagain do so well, they don't have a bad attitude to education. Now I'm not saying that people who do trades or choose not to go to college are looked down on, not at all, but there is an expectancy to do as well as you can in school in the classroom and on the sporting pitches. If I went into my guidance councillor and said I want to be a carpenter he had all the info needed. Just don't piss about and not do it properly is the attitude.

Name me a country in the world where there is no private second level education. You cannot get rid off it unless we outlaw it which would be unconstitutional. France have the exact same system as us, as do Australia and many more I'm sure.

As for the financial costs it sounds great with economies of scale (btw you have to add on excessive add ons for supervision which unions such as the ASTI fought for to wages). If your point illustrates anything, it is that the cost of paying teachers is enormous (your figures should be one to eighteen btw that is what is was for the 99m figure). One thing though is that these economies of scale work the same way in the free sector. In fact I would argue that fee paying schools don't exagerate the cost, that is to say there isn't a overspill of uneeded teachers payed by the state. That is because these schools worked of max capacity. They were turning away people multiple times over and still are in some cases. Therefore the state and the school could work the ratio with absolute confidence in the cost. I can say with pretty good confidence that that 99m was the cost of paying teachers in that sector.

There is waste in economies in scale all over public sector wages and education is no different, I would argue that the biggest waste is in capital costs where some school buildings are too big and some too small.

dkin

1) First of all private schools do not receive any more money than a public school the only difference is that the 'voluntary' contribution is obligatory. If we are worried about spending too much money why not reduce teachers salaries or at least put them on performance based contracts. Secondly why close/interfere with schools that consistantly produce the best results why not close disadvantaged/underperforming schools and save money that way.

2) Students from certain areas will always have an inherent advantage based on their location for instance students in Muckross School Donnybrook tend to do better than those from Moyross Limerick despite the fact they both went to public schools. There will always also be an inherited genetic advantage that some enjoy just because your parents can afford the fees doesn't make you smart.

3) Family environment is more important than teachers/schooling and pupils that come from a family environment that prizes education are more likely to succed. Generally parents that pay for private education put a premium on education and therefore students are more likely to meet peers from a similar background and a supportive environment develops. This is a good thing but although it tends to be emphasised in private education there is no reason that a similar phenomnean cannot happen in public school.

4) Teachers in private school tend to be no different from those in public school. I think the performance of any given year is largely down to the dominent personalities of those involved. If your child goes to a school were the dominent personalities have a low regard for intellectual endevour he/she will suffer regardless of whether it's a public or private school. I believe many parents send their child to private school in the hope they will not encounter the detremential effects of such people and I believe public schools should have a far stronger system to deal with them.

5) I am a strong believer in streaming education based on performance and I think this is the direction we should go in. Forcing everyone to coexist at the lowest common denominator is unsustainable and harmful especially due to increasing globalisation and the resulting international competition that the current generation will be forced to deal with.

Rebelheart

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

ProperDeadly wrote: »

Let's take the scenario where the government decides to completely withdraw funding from private schools, leaving each private school to fund itself completely.

The reality is that the school fees would double. Many parents work extremely hard to be able to afford the 4/5 k that private schools typically charge. If they were forced to pay the 8-10 k ( perhaps double/triple this for when siblings are taken into account), then the simple fact is , that most parents would simply not be able to afford the higher fees, and have to move their children to a state school.

The horror, the trauma of it all.

Rebelheart

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

ProperDeadly wrote: »

The reality is that parents of private school children pay taxes, so have every right to avail of the government support for private schools.

Unlike those clearly layabout parents who send their children to a state school, of course. How noble of parents who send their children to fee-paying schools now to be, it appears, the only taxpayers in Ireland and thus entitled to have their chosen private education subsidised by the state. :rolleyes:

themont85

Rebelheart wrote: »

The horror, the trauma of it all.

Mature response. This poster was pointing out the extra costs of people moving to the state sector.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Unlike those clearly layabout parents who send their children to a state school, of course. How noble of parents who send their children to fee-paying schools now to be, it appears, the only taxpayers in Ireland and thus entitled to have their chosen private education subsidised by the state. :rolleyes:

They pay taxes just like most, their kids are entitled to free second level education. That they choose not to enter state funded buildings reduces the cost for the state (it does). As long as the free sector has plenty of schools I don't see the problem.

Germany, France and Australia have similar arrangments to us.

themont85

Rebelheart wrote: »

It is untrue to imply or claim that fee-paying schools are not subsidised by the state for their building and maintenance projects. From The Irish Times on 20 January 2009:


"New figures show that €99 million was spent on paying teachers’ salaries in the fee-paying sector.

The Department of Education says a further €2.1 million was spent on capital or building works in 17 fee-paying schools in 2008."



That is - and let us be very clear about this - the Irish State gives millions of euro per annum to build and rebuild property on private grounds, property which then belongs to private organisations (usually religious institutions). This is happening at a time when students in public schools across Ireland cannot even get an SNA (Special Needs Assistant) to help them.

When religious institutions are finally removed from involvement in mainstream Irish education, will the Irish state have to pay the market price to buy back school buildings, the construction of which it funded in the first place?

No prizes for guessing who's getting the short straw in this situation.

I disagree myself with fee paying schools getting this money. My old school and several around it have applied for it in the past. One of the major reasons was that they just couldn't afford to take out massive loans given they actully charged low fees when they applied. In fairness though, it is a drop in the ocean the amount they give every year, very very little. I doubt they still are giving this money given the economic situation.

Most of the schools will simply go into trusts. The church won't be able do anything with these lands as they are mostly help in special zoning by the councils. Btw most pubic schools are owned by religous orders too so technically we are putting nearly all out money into 'private institutions'.

Pherekydes

They should continue to fund private schools at taxpayers' expense. In fact, they should increase funding.

That way our private schools will continue to pump out top grade students who can maintain the Status Quo in politics, the economy and the banks.

Otherwise, this great little country might be in danger of becoming a meritocracy and we can't be having that.

RMD

The_Minister wrote: »

My understanding is that they get as much as public schools do, not any more.

They use this money as normal, to provide the basics, then use the fees to improve the facilities at the schools, to make sure the kids get as good an education as possible.

The state should finance each school to a minimum level, and if parents want to pay extra after that, it's their choice.

I attend a private school. The money is used for funding the teachers wages and that's it. The 5k my parents pay per year pay for the facilities, subsidized lunches, extra curricular activities etc.

Serious amount of hatred (possibly even jealousy?) of these schools in this thread.

dotsman

brianthebard wrote: »

So are they or aren't they?

They are clearly not "subsidised" by taxpayers money. Anyone who tries to claim that may as well be screaming that they are clearly failing to understand fairly simple concepts. As I clearly stated in my post, it is the other way around, and the "subsidy", if you want to call it that, comes from the parent pockets.

brianthebard wrote: »

Your post was just more capitalist, give-me-the-biggest-share-of-pie bull$hit. See what I did there?

Yup, I'm impressed.

desertcircus wrote: »

Dotsman: socialism is commonly defined as "the ownership of the means of production by the workers", not "refusing to subsidise fee-paying schools by reducing the funds going to state schools.

Great, if I want a textbook definition for socialism, I now know who to ask (but, to be honest, I cannot ever see myself ever asking that). In the meantime, have you read any more on the concepts of socialism? The reasons behind it? The broader reaches of it?

P.S. see above regarding the whole bs term of "subsidising fee-paying schools".

P.P.S Why aren't you answering the question?

desertcircus wrote: »

Second: this denies parents nothing - they're entitled to send their kids to the state school down the road.

Of course it denies them something. Unless you are suggesting they should be entitled to a tax refund if you are going to deny them state funding?

Can you please understand that a fee-paying school is the same as a non-fee-paying school except the parents pay in extra money to the school in the hope of a better education for their child?

desertcircus wrote: »

Third: double taxation happens all the time (you pay VAT on what you buy with PAYE wages), but ending a subsidy isn't the same as taxation anyway.

Your example would generally not be regarded as Double Taxation. Double Taxation generally refers to being imposed with the same tax twice (ie, if you were to pay PAYE, and then pay another income tax on the remaining sum, or if you were to pay a sales tax/VAT in a foreign country, and then be forced to pay VAT again when you get the product delivered here.

The double taxation here is that (some of) the parents income taxes are supposed to go towards providing a basic education to all. However, under your ideals, they are being told to fcuk off, that they are not getting any of the tax money, to which they greatly (proportionally) contributed, and pay entirely for their child's education out of their own pocket.

desertcircus wrote: »

Fourth: your reading of the last part is beyond obtuse and makes me wonder if you read the exact opposite to what I wrote. I advocated a policy that maximises every child's opportunity to excel and tries to remove parental funding as a determinant of how far you get in life, and you declare I'm "maintaining the herd". That's just weird. How is it "maintaining the herd" to try to make sure that the people at the top faced as much fair competition as possible on their way up?

Let me explain how I understood your post to read. You argue that the fee-paying schools are better than non fee-paying schools, with their graduates more likely to succeed career-wise. You believe this to be a bad thing and that these students should be forced to go to a public school, where they are less likely to do well.

Is that a fair interpretation of you post? If so, my reply still stands.

hooradiation wrote: »

aww, bless. You think that's an accurate reflection of reality.
You are just so *adorable*

Thanks

Dudess wrote: »

Money that could go towards state schools is being diverted to private schools, which aren't a necessity.

But this money is not being "diverted"! Please see above regarding "subsidising". The Department of Education pay for the teachers in all schools. In a fee-paying school, the parents pay extra on top off the basic state offering. In a non fee-paying school, the government/taxpayer has to provide extra funding for the school. It really is as simple as that.

Dudess wrote: »

No, it's definitely not "the usual begrudgery" - that's mostly a myth. I personally don't see the advantage of a school being fee-paying.

Begrudgery is not a myth. It's very much alive and well and very prevalent in Irish society. This here is a perfect example. Can you not see what you are saying? You "don't personally see the advantage of a school being fee-paying". That's fine. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. I'm A-OK with that. But, just because you don't see the advantage you want to deprive those that do. What should it matter if a parent wants to spend their money in the pub/on holidays/new car, or investing in their child's future. To me, I think that last option is the most admirable. If you think it's a bad investment, that's ok, I'm not going to tell you how to spend your money (unless you're breaking the law etc). But please don't try to stop me from spending mine, even if you believe it to be foolishly. I'm not hurting anyone, and am just trying to do what I believe best for my children.

I'm not saying I'm going to definitely send my kids to a fee-paying, nor am I saying that they are always the best schools. I'm just saying that, if there is a choice between 4 schools, if the best one is fee-paying, and if I can afford it, then that is something I am going to do.

Dudess wrote: »

LOL - that chestnut. I fail to see where I said I'm "bitter" towards Scoil Mhuire girls, but decide that if you must.:D (Although they have nicer uniforms to be fair). That school is lacking in facilities, therefore it wasn't a logical choice for me.

I don't know, just picked up a subtle vibe! To be honest, I get that vibe from most cork girls. If you are talking about a girl from Christ the King, St Al's, Mount Mercy, St Angelas, etc to another girl from Cork, past school doesn't matter. If, however, the girl you talking about went to Scoil Mhuire, then there's always this, I don't know, "look"? This "oh, one of those" kind of looks?

I don't know, I just think there definitely was a prevalent anti-"scoil mhuire" vibe amongst all non scoil mhuire girls.:D

P.S. You never answered any of my questions!

Gannicus

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

The_Minister wrote: »

My understanding is that they get as much as public schools do, not any more.

They use this money as normal, to provide the basics, then use the fees to improve the facilities at the schools, to make sure the kids get as good an education as possible.

The state should finance each school to a minimum level, and if parents want to pay extra after that, it's their choice.

can anyone say complete bo**ox. They want to be fee paying schools then they fund themselves. you and I that can't afford to send our kids to them shouldn't have to fund something we are not availing of.

Fratton Fred

Big Steve wrote: »

can anyone say complete bo**ox. They want to be fee paying schools then they fund themselves. you and I that can't afford to send our kids to them shouldn't have to fund something we are not availing of.

Should the people who aren't Catholic be paying for the 95% of the schools in this country they can't avail of?

Dudess

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

Serious amount of hatred... of these schools

They cultivate a most unpleasant mindset. Of course not all who attend are snobs - not by a long shot, and not all who attend are spoilt. But such schools by their nature are exclusionary. They can be elitist. They're an "us and them" kinda setup. They don't expose pupils to diversity. There are sadly many who buy into the "it keeps us segregated from the riff-raff" mindset.

Anyone who says the above isn't true is just being disingenuous.

possibly even jealousy?

Well at least you have the brains to ask it rather than just state it.
I must say, I'm at pains to figure out what there is to be jealous of, when there are plenty of excellent state schools.
Personally, I wanted to go to a school that was convenient to where I lived and had good facilities. The private school that is convenient (ish) to where I lived does not have good facilities - it is a small, old, run-down building. Why would I choose that? And hardly any of my friends were going there. I know there are reasons why the girls who choose it do so: their friends are going there also, their mother, grandmother etc might have gone there and they're continuing the family tradition, they might have a parent working there, the location of it is ideal. None of these apply to me though, so the only reason for me choosing it would be to say "Look everyone, my parents can afford to send me to private school!"
Snobs might look at the state school I went to and think "Ew... it has a riff-raff contingent" but anyone who's sensible would look at it and see a nice building on huge, pleasant, verdant grounds with science labs, art rooms, language labs, computer labs, a library, a decent canteen, a decent gym, a music room, home ec rooms. Apparently, according to another poster here though, I'm "bitter" about not going to the run-down private sh1t-hole. I really do not understand what I'm supposed to be bitter about...

The only other thing I can think of that would be a cause for jealousy would be the fact that those who attend private school are wealthy - this is separate to the actual school itself though. And plenty who go to private school AREN'T wealthy anyway.
My brothers went to private school - one that DID have good facilities though, so therefore a logical choice. Although they were shocked by the grotesquely snobbish attitudes some of their classmates had, but these were only a handful, in fairness. They also had friends whose parents didn't have a pot to piss in but they made sacrifices to send their boys to the school, as it is a very good one - but not because you have to pay fees to go there, because it has really good facilities, something that is found in either type of school.

Pherekydes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Should the people who aren't Catholic be paying for the 95% of the schools in this country they can't avail of?

Of course they can avail of them. To say otherwise is a downright lie untruth.

Cool Mo D

Pherekydes wrote: »

Of course they can avail of them. To say otherwise is a downright lie untruth.

But not in the same way as Catholics. If you're not Catholic, you are a second class citizen in the eyes of most of the education system.

Pherekydes

Cool Mo D wrote: »

But not in the same way as Catholics. If you're not Catholic, you are a second class citizen in the eyes of most of the education system.

Nonsense.

Fratton Fred

Pherekydes wrote: »

Nonsense.

Did you not hear the fuss a couple of years ago because a large number of people could not get their kids into any of their local schools.

A lot of Catholic schools are asking to see baptism certs before you can put your childs name on the list.

spurious

The vast majority of Irish schools are privately-owned, fee-paying or not.
They are owned by churches of various faiths.

IMO, such schools have every right to be there if they fund themselves. The State already funds primary and secondary schools throughout the country. They should own and control them too.

hooradiation

dotsman wrote: »

The double taxation here is that (some of) the parents income taxes are supposed to go towards providing a basic education to all. However, under your ideals, they are being told to fcuk off, that they are not getting any of the tax money, to which they greatly (proportionally) contributed, and pay entirely for their child's education out of their own pocket.

I don't see a problem here.

The public option is available to all, if someone should choose to forgo it in favour of a private school then i don't see how they can then turn around and complain that the option that they chose themselves isn't being funded by state money.
(the fact that it is currently is fine, but it is a quirk of the current system, not something that people opting to send their kids to private schools are entitled to by any stretch of the imagination)

ejmaztec

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

Were all of the private schools originally set up so that the Irish education system could ape the British elitist system?

dotsman

hooradiation wrote: »

I don't see a problem here.

The public option is available to all, if someone should choose to forgo it in favour of a private school then i don't see how they can then turn around and complain that the option that they chose themselves isn't being funded by state money.
(the fact that it is currently is fine, but it is a quirk of the current system, not something that people opting to send their kids to private schools are entitled to by any stretch of the imagination)

But you are looking at it all wrong. A fee-paying school is taking the basic offering by the state, and having those funds topped up by the parents. In other words, every kid is getting the same, but some parents are choosing to provide their own additional financial support (fee-paying), while others look to the state/taxpayers for it (non fee-paying).

It's a bit like with hospital. Everyone is entitled to the same basic treatment. However, if you wish to pay extra, you can have a private room and all the extras. But you still get treated by the same doctors/nurses, you are still getting the same treatment/drugs etc. You are not "depriving" anybody of medical care. You are not being "subsidised" by the taxpayer. Instead, you are taking the basic package offered to everyone and improving on it.

ejmaztec

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

dotsman wrote: »

But you are looking at it all wrong. A fee-paying school is taking the basic offering by the state, and having those funds topped up by the parents. In other words, every kid is getting the same, but some parents are choosing to provide their own additional financial support (fee-paying), while others look to the state/taxpayers for it (non fee-paying).

It's a bit like with hospital. Everyone is entitled to the same basic treatment. However, if you wish to pay extra, you can have a private room and all the extras. But you still get treated by the same doctors/nurses, you are still getting the same treatment/drugs etc. You are not "depriving" anybody of medical care. You are not being "subsidised" by the taxpayer. Instead, you are taking the basic package offered to everyone and improving on it.

Sometimes even before you die.

dotsman

ejmaztec wrote: »

Were all of the private schools originally set up so that the Irish education system could ape the British elitist system?

No. All schools were originally private. Over the past few decades, the state has set up a number of community/comprehensive schools, which now make up about 15% of schools. There are also Vocational Schools which make up about 25%. The rest (circa 60%) remain private.

I have no idea of what you mean by "ape the British elitist system".

Pete4779

desertcircus wrote: »

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

You are under some illusion that all people are equal. They are not. I am not as tall, as short, fast at runner, smart or as stupid as anyone else in the country or planet. We are not equal. We have no right to demand other people's income or the fruits of others people's labour.

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.

And what is wrong with that? A parent is entitled to refuse to have their child in a school with a high percentage of drug users or antisocial students. It's very likely that being exposed to this, will reduce their child's chances and opportunities in life.

So, along with paying taxes for the state school, they then pay extra to pay for fee-paying schools. That is their right, as free thinkers in a supposedly free country but as I can see more and more, especially looking at my deteriorating pay check to bail out welfare recipients and bankers, that this is a system to create a large mass of uneducated socialist welfare-dependent morons. If someone has different colour eyes, they are obviously cheating the system and getting "more" out of life. So shoot them? Put them in a gas chamber?

Deserve an equal shot? Why? They are not all equal. I want to be in the Olympics final 100m race. I want to make no effort, spend no time training, but I want the opportunity anyway. Well tough, I can't. That is life. We are not all the same, we are not all equal and the sooner you understand that the more life will make sense to you, I think.

Pete4779

Rebelheart wrote: »

Unlike those clearly layabout parents who send their children to a state school, of course. How noble of parents who send their children to fee-paying schools now to be, it appears, the only taxpayers in Ireland and thus entitled to have their chosen private education subsidised by the state. :rolleyes:

They are still taxpayers and paying as much, but likely, a lot more in taxes than the person who has a child in state education.

Your response is classic for someone who doesn't see any way in life other than claiming welfare from the state for living, rent, etc.,. I would bet you are a net benficiary from the state as you seem to not understand that the "state's money" is actual generated from taxes.

Mike 1972

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

Pete4779 wrote: »

Your response is classic for someone who doesn't see any way in life other than claiming welfare from the state for living, rent, etc.,. I would bet you are a net benficiary from the state as you seem to not understand that the "state's money" is actual generated from taxes.

Lot of groundless assumptions flying around in this thread it seems........

ejmaztec

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

dotsman wrote: »

No. All schools were originally private. Over the past few decades, the state has set up a number of community/comprehensive schools, which now make up about 15% of schools. There are also Vocational Schools which make up about 25%. The rest (circa 60%) remain private.

I have no idea of what you mean by "ape the British elitist system".

I'm talking about the Irish equivalent, if any, of elitist schools like Eton, Harrow etc.

sink

Dudess wrote: »

They cultivate a most unpleasant mindset. Of course not all who attend are snobs - not by a long shot, and not all who attend are spoilt. But such schools by their nature are exclusionary. They can be elitist. They're an "us and them" kinda setup. They don't expose pupils to diversity. There are sadly many who buy into the "it keeps us segregated from the riff-raff" mindset.

Anyone who says the above isn't true is just being disingenuous.

I attended private school, boarded for 6 years and I was exposed to far more diversity than your average public school. I had classmates from Germany, Spain, South Africa, Nigeria, Hong-Kong, England and America. There were kids there from all sorts of backgrounds, some were rich some were not. Some were from the countryside some were from Cities. There were plenty of kids whose parents were from from working class backgrounds and had made a bit of money running their own businesses. There were many kids whose parents had divorced and were sent to boarding school to keep them away from all the turmoil at home, in fact the percentage of kids with divorced parents was well above normal. A tiny minority were snobs, but snobbery was looked down upon by pretty much everyone else.

I think you have a stereotypical view of private school kids and you're holding some sort of grudge.

themont85

Dudess wrote: »

They cultivate a most unpleasant mindset. Of course not all who attend are snobs - not by a long shot, and not all who attend are spoilt. But such schools by their nature are exclusionary. They can be elitist. They're an "us and them" kinda setup. They don't expose pupils to diversity. There are sadly many who buy into the "it keeps us segregated from the riff-raff" mindset.

Anyone who says the above isn't true is just being disingenuous.

You know that a lot of these schools have scholarships. For disadvantaged kids, for foreign people ect. I know some who have cultivated that attitude, a tiny minority, just as I know plenty of small minded fools who consider you a silver spooned child just because of where I am from or where I went to school.

Regardless, your arguments stem from a 'all men are equal' standpoint. Doesn't exist and never will. Kids are advantaged and disadvantaged. The only way to stop a parent from sending a kid to a private school is to change the constitution, that is not the type of country I want to live in, when people say socialist/communist that is what they mean. France, Germany ect all have this type of school too, we are not alone.

themont85

Pherekydes wrote: »

They should continue to fund private schools at taxpayers' expense. In fact, they should increase funding.

That way our private schools will continue to pump out top grade students who can maintain the Status Quo in politics, the economy and the banks.

Otherwise, this great little country might be in danger of becoming a meritocracy and we can't be having that.

I wonder where guys like Haughey and Bertie went to school?

The problems of this country cannot be put down to fee pating schools, no matter how hard you try.

ascanbe

This state has an obligation to provide a basic education to its citizens; in doing so it should ensure that it provides a level playing-field and does not foster a multi-tier system.
The provision of state schools, which are open to all on a first-come, first-served basis and demand no fees, is the way to achieve this.
The state is then fulfilling its obligation to provide the opportunity of an education to all is citizens.
If there are parents who feel their children would be better served by attending a private school, that, in essence, state schools are not good enough for their children, then they, by all means, can use their money in order to provide this; but the state should not subsidise this in any way.
The state has already offered the opportunity of an education to their children; those parents have chosen not to avail of this.

Rebelheart

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

RMD wrote: »

I attend a private school. The money is used for funding the teachers wages and that's it. The 5k my parents pay per year pay for the facilities, subsidized lunches, extra curricular activities etc.

Serious amount of hatred (possibly even jealousy?) of these schools in this thread.

Over €99 million of taxpayers' money was given in 2008 to fund teachers' wages alone in fee-paying schools. With respect, "That's it" sounds a bit rich in the circumstances. We have already established that, in the same year, 17 of the 56 fee-paying schools received millions more euro to fund building and maintenance projects in fee-paying schools. This is a fact.

In an environment when state-controlled schools are suffering from a lack of even remedial supports, this is an injustice worthy of the wrath of future generations of Irish people. In this context, this subvention is so morally wrong in every respect.

dotsman

Rebelheart wrote: »

Over €99 million of taxpayers' money was given in 2008 to fund teachers' wages alone in fee-paying schools. With respect, "That's it" sounds a bit rich in the circumstances. We have already established that, in the same year, 17 of the 56 fee-paying schools received millions more euro to fund building and maintenance projects in fee-paying schools. This is a fact.

You have a great way with words to distort simple truths into some sort of twisted version of reality. Can you please not accept that "€99 million[/B] of taxpayers' money was given in 2008 to fund teachers' wages alone in fee-paying schools" is nothing more than "The department of education pays all teacher's wages".

Rebelheart wrote: »

In an environment when state-controlled schools are suffering from a lack of even remedial supports,

So can you not understand why some parents feel that it is important to provide further assistance to their kids school?

And it is to this "suffering" environment that you want to expel fee-paying students to? Once again, I refer to my previous post...

dotsman wrote: »

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.

Rebelheart wrote: »

this is an injustice worthy of the wrath of future generations of Irish people[/B]

I found this bit hilarious:D

When are you people going to try and improve the non-fee paying schools, rather than trying to deny those who have both the ability to provide and belief in better education.

Rebelheart

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

themont85 wrote: »

Mature response. This poster was pointing out the extra costs of people moving to the state sector.

No, he wasn't. Nobody - not a single person - here has given evidence for these supposed "costs" of moving to the state sector. Please give us them, as you evidently have them.

themont85 wrote: »

They pay taxes just like most, their kids are entitled to free second level education.

They do, and they do. Fair point.

themont85 wrote: »

That they choose not to enter state funded buildings reduces the cost for the state (it does).

Now, above all points made on this thread in defence of fee-paying schools this has not been supported by a single statistic. Not one. Where is your evidence? You can't make claims like that in this day and age without a reference.You can thank Donogh O'Malley for that - oops.

themont85 wrote: »

Germany, France and Australia have similar arrangments to us.

Where is your evidence for this claim?

Coriolanus

Rebelheart wrote: »

Now, above all points made on this thread in defence of fee-paying schools this has not been supported by a single statistic. Not one. Where is your evidence? You can't make claims like that in this day and age without a reference.

It beggars belief that you need this explained. Now I have no figures but I can do a breakdowm of what it costs.

Private school student costs the State teachers wages.
Public school student costs the State teachers wages and misc staffing costs and esb and telephone and sports equipment and computer equipment and tables and chairs and paint every August and landscaping and... well. I'm sure you see where I'm going here.

Now I went to a public school and every year the parents were asked to make a voluntary contribution. That money was used to do extra stuff around the school that the State didn't pay for. The only difference between that and the fees paid to a private school is that my attendance wasn't dependent on the contribution and obviously, the contribution was generally small compared to the thousands a year paid to a private school.
In practise though they were one and the same. I had a relative advantage to the kids in the next town over because as an aggregate that school wasn't able to collect nearly as much cash from parents each year. So it's not as if inequity doesn't exist in the public schools too.

Rebelheart

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

dotsman wrote: »

You have a great way with words to distort simple truths into some sort of twisted version of reality. Can you please not accept that "€99 million[/B] of taxpayers' money was given in 2008 to fund teachers' wages alone in fee-paying schools" is nothing more than "The department of education pays all teacher's wages".

Er, not really when the over €99 million is being used to solely pay the salaries of teachers who are employed by private (usually religious) institutions. None of this money - not a red cent - goes towards funding the cost of teachers in state-owned schools where there is frequently over 30 students in each class, where SNAs' are cut back and thus lives and families are suddenly plunged into serious trouble (you evidently have little idea of the abject horror uncertainty breeds in the average child with an ASD, for instance - and thus in his entire family).

dotsman wrote: »

So can you not understand why some parents feel that it is important to provide further assistance to their kids school?

I can understand why and they are perfectly entitled to send their children to a private school as long as they pay all of the costs for that education. I have absolutely no problem with that. However, I have a deep, fundamental, problem with my taxes being used to fund their preferences to the tune of over €100 million per annum, when that money could be used to build up the human and physical infrastructure of state schools in Ireland.

dotsman wrote: »

When are you people going to try and improve the non-fee paying schools, rather than trying to deny those who have both the ability to provide and belief in better education.

Perhaps that will be possible when the state-owned school system of Ireland no longer has to subvent the fee-paying school system of Ireland to the tune of over €100 million per annum? (this is obvious)

ascanbe

Nevore wrote: »

It beggars belief that you need this explained. Now I have no figures but I can do a breakdowm of what it costs.

Private school student costs the State teachers wages.
Public school student costs the State teachers wages and misc staffing costs and esb and telephone and sports equipment and computer equipment and tables and chairs and paint every August and landscaping and... well. I'm sure you see where I'm going here.

Now I went to a public school and every year the parents were asked to make a voluntary contribution. That money was used to do extra stuff around the school that the State didn't pay for. The only difference between that and the fees paid to a private school is that my attendance wasn't dependent on the contribution and obviously, the contribution was generally small compared to the thousands a year paid to a private school.
In practise though they were one and the same. I had a relative advantage to the kids in the next town over because as an aggregate that school wasn't able to collect nearly as much cash from parents each year. So it's not as if inequity doesn't exist in the public schools too.

What I have bolded is the key point in this discussion.

Rebelheart

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

dotsman wrote: »

When are you people going to try and improve the non-fee paying schools, rather than trying to deny those who have both the ability to provide and belief in better education.

As for "better education", Coláiste Eoin and Coláiste Iosagáin, two public schools albeit with a 17-year waiting list, provide an education far better than the one provided by the religious of Blackrock or Belvedere, and all their notions to mimic Eton and Harrow at one-sixth of the cost (Harrow fees: c. £28,000; Eton fees: c. £28,000: Blackrock: c. €5,500). The cultural world of Blackrock and Belvedere (and the rest of them) is so blatantly playing to a power dynamic of the 19th century where the British Empire and British sports like rugby were there to be mimicked.

Moreover, fee-paying schools in Ireland truly are a case of parents with notions not having the financial muscle to support those notions without these huge subventions from the Irish state. That is the true irony of all the posters who are screaming "jealousy" - would they have got a private school education if it cost their parents €30,000 per annum as is the case in the elite British fee-paying schools (which receive no state subvention)?

Highly unlikely. A bit more honesty here, please.