Should state subsidisation of Irish private schools continue?

melekalikimaka

Dudess wrote: »

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.

a number of teachers in my school - 6 or 7, were paid directly by school as they were dr. in fields and not h dip, so that point, in this case is wrong

Ollchailin

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

melekalikimaka wrote: »

a number of teachers in my school - 6 or 7, were paid directly by school as they were dr. in fields and not h dip, so that point, in this case is wrong

If what you're trying to say here (and I may have picked you up incorrectly) is that because those 6 or 7 had phds held better qualifications to teach, then you could not be more wrong. A phd is not the qualification you need to teach, a h dip (or PGDE as it's called now) is.

Just because someone holds a phd in a subject, doesn't mean they know how to teach it. Now if they had a phd & a hdip, that'd be different.

Personally I don't care less whether there are private schools or not. I teach in one and I'd actually probably be happier if it wasn't private- I just think the classroom dynamics would be better. There are far too many hot-headed over confident students in my school, and whilst you'll always get a bit of that no matter where you go, it's definitely more prominent in a private school, and I feel the nice, good students suffer as a result. If it was more balanced I'd find it much easier to teach to be honest.

Finally, just to add- a huge amount of my students, despite the fact that it costs a 5-figure sum to attend my school, are in no way obviously well off. That varies between the ones who some across as real salt-of-the-earth types, to the ones who I can only describe as majorly chav-tastic. We're talking here when not in uniform they're walking around like members of 50 Cent's posse, burberry baseball caps and blingtastic jewellery. Trying to teach those ones is the hardest job I've ever done, they're such hard work. There are good lads in the same class as them who don't stand a chance gaining from paying this 5-figure sum because I get to teach about as much as any teacher in a public school does.

If you have a son/daughter who is a fairly decent worker then I can kind of see the benefits of private school (although personally I think good workers will do well in most schools) but if your son/daughter is weak/lazy/both then I just don't see the benefits.

Dudess

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

Glenster wrote: »

What I object to is all the begrudgers here who say that parents shouldn't be allowed to pay a bit extra to improve their kids education.

There is a very real 'If I can't have it no-one can!' attitude. Amongst the poor.

Where's your proof these "begrudgers" (as usual with that word, not well substantiated) are "poor"?

Such trollish snobbery - seriously!

Pete4779

Ollchailin wrote: »

Just because someone holds a phd in a subject, doesn't mean they know how to teach it. Now if they had a phd & a hdip, that'd be different.

Actually having a doctorate by definition pretty much qualifies you to teach the subject. That's what a doctorate is.

A maths teacher with a PhD will pretty much be 10 billion times better a teacher than a HDip, and I'd rather get my kids taught by the best so they can aim to be the best as opoosed to the mediocre so they can set their goals on the lofty heights of mediocrity.

Dionysus

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

Pete4779 wrote: »

Actually having a doctorate by definition pretty much qualifies you to teach the subject. That's what a doctorate is.

A maths teacher with a PhD will pretty much be 10 billion times better a teacher than a HDip, and I'd rather get my kids taught by the best so they can aim to be the best as opoosed to the mediocre so they can set their goals on the lofty heights of mediocrity.

It doesn't. Ollcháilín is correct on this one. You need a PGDE, not a PhD, to teach. Well, technically you still do not need a PGDE to teach in vocational schools, but in reality you do if you are just starting out. There is a vast difference between the skills one acquires when working in isolation while doing a PhD and the skills one acquires when interacting with 20 or 30 kids. They are incomparable: a different type of intelligence is being used.

I have a PhD and I'm completing the PGDE at present. Doing a PhD is definitely much more intellectually rewarding and easily the most satisfying thing I've achieved but it depended on spending enormous amounts of time in isolation. Such isolation is not a natural state for most humans. Teaching is culturally the opposite and has forced me to develop or uncover social skills that I had little use for during the doctorate. A teacher with a PhD does carry enormous strengths - knowledge, determination, ambition, empathy for people struggling, passion for the subject, etc - into a classroom and for that is rewarded in his salary: I will get €6500 extra per annum for my qualification (which doesn't even cover one year of my PhD fees). But there are some great teachers - better teachers than me - whose true qualification was gained from teaching in the classroom for 20 years. Once you can assert management of your classroom, teaching is a very spiritual profession where you can make enormous differences to a child's life. You need empathy, rather than an academic qualification, for that.

hooradiation

melekalikimaka wrote: »

so your saying public schooling should be exclusive to the poor? your in a dreamland mate, a spiteful dreamland

No. I'm not. At all.
So take your shitty words out of my mouth right fucking now.

A labour pool, seeing as you are operating under some horrible misconceptions, is the source of trained people from which workers can be hired, not whatever the fuck you think it means.

So, as i said, if someone believes that these private schools give children the best shot at doing well in life, and therefore most likely being the kind of people that have employees, then the percentage of their tax that goes on funding public schools is not "wasted" or "something they have no use for" because that means they have people in the labour pool who can are educated to a high enough standard as to be employable.

It's really easy to grasp if you stop running around pretending that what you imagine I've said is what you should argue against as opposed to what i ACTUALLY said.

dotsman

Wow, 257 posts in and people are still arguing about this no-brainer (while most of my questions previously posted remain unanswered)

Let's establish a few facts:

• Private schools do not necessarily mean fee-paying. Most schools are private* (typically owned/run by religous orders). The state pays for the staff. However, when it comes to the required extra funds, some schools depend on state funding and voluntary contributions, others have a fixed compulsary amount which the parents must contribute for their child to attend.
• Statistically (aknowledging plenty of individual exceptions), fee-paying schools produce better academic graduates, with much higher attendance, not just at university level, but at the top levels of university (medicine, law, engineering, dentistry etc)
• Statistically, parents of fee-paying students typically earn more than parents of non fee-paying students, therefore pay more tax.
• Statistically, graduates of fee-paying students typically earn more than graduates of non fee-paying students, therefore pay more tax.
• Fee-paying students cost the state less for their education than non fee-paying students.
• If the state didn't fund the teacher's salaries in fee-paying schools, then, due to the massive increase in fees, a lot of students would no longer be able to attend, putting huge pressure on the exisitng non fee-paying system, costing the state a lot more than they would save.

OK, so with that established, let's look at the OP's poll.
"Should state subsidisation of Irish private schools continue?" is a very loaded question. Ultimately, they are not subsidised by the state. In fact it is the other way around, they are subsidised by the parents. Ultimately, to be more accurate, that question should read "Should we raise taxes to spend more taxpayers money to achieve a worse education system?"

To that question, at present, 143 (66.2%) of people have said yes.

There can be no logical reason for this result other than either:

• People were fooled by the OP's loaded question, and voted without independently assessing the issue.
• Begrudgery. The foundation of the bull$hit socialist policies that so often get bandied around (and unfortunatly, all too often, implemented).

* The other types of school are the Vocational (about a quarter) and Community schools (a handful).

Dionysus

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

There's an excellent article in this morning Irish Times by James McDermott entitled Time to end the state subsidy for private schools beginning with this most important of questions:
'Why is the taxpayer still subsidising elitist fee-paying secondary schools?'

And far from this question being posed by "begrudgers" it is asked by a lecturer in law in UCD whose "crime" is that he doesn't expect to have the fee-paying school he chooses for his children to be subsidised by the Irish taxpayer. Basic pride. This is more than can be said for those who support the current annual €100 million transfer from the Department of Education to fee-paying schools. No other state in the European Union has all the teachers (and even much of the building and maintenance) in private fee-paying schools paid for by the state. The current situation in Ireland would be inconceivable elsewhere.

RolandIRL

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

there's nothing wrong with public schools. if we stopped giving money to the private schools, then public schools would be improved. i know a few people who went to private schools, and they didn't fare any better than i did in a public school (2 of them are repeating the LC).

more people in the public schools (that i know) got what they wanted more than the students who went private.

RolandIRL

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

Pete4779 wrote: »

Actually having a doctorate by definition pretty much qualifies you to teach the subject. That's what a doctorate is.

A maths teacher with a PhD will pretty much be 10 billion times better a teacher than a HDip, and I'd rather get my kids taught by the best so they can aim to be the best as opoosed to the mediocre so they can set their goals on the lofty heights of mediocrity.

not necessarily. it all depends on the teacher, and their ability to communicate. i could go and get a PhD, but have sh**e people skills. that doesn't make me better than someone who has a HDip, but great people skills. they'd be better at teaching the subject.
knowing the subject and teaching it are two very different things.

Gunmonkey

Well I went to one of the "evil demonic fee-paying schools", wasnt an amazing place but wasnt a dive either.

Thing is, we had to learn the same curriculum as every other school, public or private. Did the Junior Cert and Leaving like everyone else in the country. Until a fee-paying school can dictate their own curriculum and their own exams (that will be recognised by the state/3rd level institutions) then I say they should get the same subsidaries as public schools.

Also, has anyone got the total tax payed to public schools across the country and how many there are? Seems the €100million figure is trotted out everytime when bashing private schools but not how much is given per student in public education, I know Nevore posted up a spreadsheet but cant access it.

the_syco

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Edit: for that matter, there's no such thing as a "public school" in Ireland; a public school would be owned and operated by the state. There's only private schools which the state pays for entirely, and private schools which the state pays for partially.

Agreed. Most primary schools are "private" schools which are run by a catholic boards.

Oh, and as for the people saying that they'd prefer their kids to be taught maths by someone who excels in the maths field: take it from me, there's a HUGE difference in knowing well what to teach, and being able to teach well. Unless they know how to impart the stuff into the students, they're useless.

Snickers Man

Glenster wrote: »

If fee paying schools were abolished and absolute equality enforced your kids might be forced to go to one of these schools.

How do you "Enforce absolute equality"?

Here's one you can help me with. I live in Dublin 4 and drive a 10 year old Volkswagen which I can't afford to change.

Therefore, "absolute equality" means that nobody in Tallaght should be allowed drive a newer car than that with a bigger engine (1600cc).

Fancy helping me to "enforce that equality"? We'll go out to Tallaght and demand that everybody better equipped than that sell their car, buy a ten year old crock and donate the balance to the education sector. They can even stipulate that none of the cash raised goes to any fee paying school.

Whaddya say?

Snickers Man

Here's the argument in a nutshell:

If each person has to bear the "full cost" of educating their own kids, then they should not have to bear any part of the cost of educating somebody elses.

So that would do away with the entire state education sector at a stroke.

Not what we want at all is it?

And as for all the bull**** about waiting lists. In fact the schools with the long waiting lists are those state-funded schools with good reputations. Everybody wants to get into those. Therefore there is an oversubscribed demand. Why pay to send your kid to a good school if they can go to an equally good school for free?

Our daughter was down on the list for one such "free" school from the age of five. She came nowhere close. So she goes to a fee-paying school. For which I make no apologies.

It comes down to a choice between time and money: you want something now-you pay; you want somebody else to pay for it, you join the queue.

Same as in health.

Take your pick.

Noreen1

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

A question:

If parents only send their children to private schools because

A: They (believe the child) receives a better education, or
B: Due to demand for the better state schools, there is genuine difficulty in obtaining a placement for a child, then:

Then, would one hundred million p/a not build several schools, thus relieving overcrowding, and 5-15K would pay for a lot of grinds?
How many of those who advocate the benefits of private schools would accept this solution?

I accept that some parents struggle financially to obtain a decent level of education for their children, and I accept that there are state schools that I would personally avoid sending my children to.
In my opinion, there are also some who send their children to private school for the social networking/future business contacts aspect.

The latter are the people who intend their children to form the "golden circles" of the future - and I suspect that it is this attitude that people find objectionable. I certainly have a distinct dislike of people who believe they/their children are inherently better than everyone else. I doubt very much that that is a minority opinion.

Noreen

Alicat

whiteman19 wrote: »

there's nothing wrong with public schools. if we stopped giving money to the private schools, then public schools would be improved. i know a few people who went to private schools, and they didn't fare any better than i did in a public school (2 of them are repeating the LC).

more people in the public schools (that i know) got what they wanted more than the students who went private.

The state pay for the teachers, that's what they're meant to do. If they're not paying for teachers in private schools they still have to pay these same teachers to teach in a public school. The private schools still require assistance from the government like the public ones. So what if in a few schools around the country, the parents opt to donate money to their child's school to improve facilities and/or improve their child's education?

There's nothing wrong with public schools but some students require a different atmosphere to learn, which may not be possible in certain public schools. A lot of public schools are extremely large and it's easy for a student with problems to get lost in the system/go unnoticed. Private schools can offer smaller classes and devote more attention to the students that need it. Some parents like to send their child to a school that offers a variety of activities that may not be available in the local public school.

It is the parent's choice to do this. They are the ones forking out the extra cash. There are a lot of excellent public schools around the country, some better than some of the private schools no doubt but it is the parent's decision.

philologos

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

^^ Teachers in private schools are still paid by the State. In some cases they are paid more for supervision duties (particularly in a boarding school after normal hours) and the like from the school. In the case that these schools have gone over the amount or quota of teachers that the State is willing to pay for, they will pay for these teachers themselves.

Ollchailin

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

Lads, I teach in a private school & this business of it providing a better learning environment & a better standard of education & whatever other reasons people feel they are superior to public schools is nothing only complete B.S. Money does not a good school make.

If a school is run well by it's management then regardless of whether it is private or public, it will be a good school. If the students are receiving support & encouragement (& the odd bit of giving out) from their parents, the school will have good students. Therefore you will have a good school with good students (and by good students I mean mannerly, co-operative & willing to learn- I'm not talking about 600 points students). Money doesn't even enter the equation. Sure, there are private schools like this, but there are also public schools like this.

You can have bad management and parents who don't care in a private school. People paying money to send their children to school does not amount to caring necessarily, it may just be convenient, or a way of making connections, or alternatively a status thing. I'd like to think for the most part though they are sent to a private school because the parents believe it is genuinely the best education they can get. I would say to parents who are considering sending their child to a private school to be aware of that.

On a slightly separate note: Boarding school. Don't get it, never will. As far as I can see, the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. I can see why some people might go the private route alright (although it's not something I would consider for my children) but as for boarding, I think in this day and age, children should be raised by their families & not by some stranger in a dorm.

Einhard

Of course. The parents of pupils attending private schools pay their taxes (indeed, their demographic pays the most taxes), so why should they not benefit from government expenditure? To suggest otherwise is ill-thought out populist nonsense.

Xluna

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

If they're state subsidised then they're not really private. It's because they are referred to as private they can discriminate against the people who pay taxes to allow them to exist. So it you're an athiest,gay,transsexual,Muslem or Jew you're working to pay to be discriminated. F*cking b*llsh*t.

Openmp

Seeing as they're "not really private" what's your problem?

You come across as having a very serious persecution complex.

Personally, I reckon it would be very funny to see your next move in the chess game if funding was withdrawn from private schools and they became even more exculsive.

The State has no business (nor do you for that matter) in what people spend or invest their money in.

You're just jealous that you can't afford to send your children to a private school/can't afford to live beside a decent state one.

Sonnenblumen

ejmaztec wrote: »

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

You could apply that logic to many cases throughout the state and what might be the results?

Anyways, state subsidy to Private schools is no different to many other forms of State subsidy. It is not a question of public v private (or posh v others). The state subsidy is put to good use and the returns for the state are also very good.

Sonnenblumen

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.

Most people with experience of these schools would disagree. To say that teachers 'are the same anywhere' is patently untrue. And before you convulse, I'm not saying that the teachers in Private schools are always better than public equivalents. But the private teaching environment is more likely better and free of constraints often found in public schools. On average better facilities, better resourced facilities and probably more applied kids more willing to be there and learn etc results in a better education.

On performance, I think you will find that the case is much clearer than you think.

Sonnenblumen

Ollchailin wrote: »

Lads, I teach in a private school & this business of it providing a better learning environment & a better standard of education & whatever other reasons people feel they are superior to public schools is nothing only complete B.S. Money does not a good school make.

If a school is run well by it's management then regardless of whether it is private or public, it will be a good school. If the students are receiving support & encouragement (& the odd bit of giving out) from their parents, the school will have good students. Therefore you will have a good school with good students (and by good students I mean mannerly, co-operative & willing to learn- I'm not talking about 600 points students). Money doesn't even enter the equation. Sure, there are private schools like this, but there are also public schools like this.

You can have bad management and parents who don't care in a private school. People paying money to send their children to school does not amount to caring necessarily, it may just be convenient, or a way of making connections, or alternatively a status thing. I'd like to think for the most part though they are sent to a private school because the parents believe it is genuinely the best education they can get. I would say to parents who are considering sending their child to a private school to be aware of that.

On a slightly separate note: Boarding school. Don't get it, never will. As far as I can see, the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. I can see why some people might go the private route alright (although it's not something I would consider for my children) but as for boarding, I think in this day and age, children should be raised by their families & not by some stranger in a dorm.

Some strange sentiments coming from a 'teacher'. On the subject of performance, do you think the state should be paying teachers for non performance of duties? Why do teachers not provide more support to assist state in removing 'unsuitable' teachers? As probably the most privileged group within the C&PS group, how can teachers justify the extraordinary generous pay+leave entitlements?

Until the state manages to regain more control of pay bargaining, the process of developing or achieving 'well run schools' will be armlocked by militant teacher interests.

Snickers Man

Ollchailin wrote: »

If a school is run well by it's management then regardless of whether it is private or public, it will be a good school.
If the students are receiving support & encouragement (& the odd bit of giving out) from their parents, the school will have good students. Therefore you will have a good school with good students (and by good students I mean mannerly, co-operative & willing to learn- I'm not talking about 600 points students).
Money doesn't even enter the equation.

True, True and True again.

Now please answer the point I raised: how does one gain access to these "good" non-fee paying schools which I happily concede exist?

One joins a long waiting list and if one's child is not on that list from a VERY young age, one can forget about it. Unless of course there are other ways of gaining influence. Like being a member of the same golf club as the school principal, or having the ear of the local TD, or buttering up political connections. i'm not alleging that any of this happens, but you'd be terribly naive to think that it doesn't. Especially in cases where there are pretty stark alternatives to one "good" free-of-charge school.

Imhof Tank

Some would say the fee paying system subsidies the non fee paying sector.

If the state stopped paying the salaries of teachers in private schools in the morning wouldnt that lead to massive fee increases and within a short time, the closure of many private schools due to lack of numbers willing to pay the new, higher fees?

Wouldnt you then see a huge proportion of the 26000 fee paying school attendees going over to the non fee paying sector, the non fee paying schools would then hire the same teachers who used to teach in the fee paying school for the same money and its a zero sum gain in terms of the public purse.

Apart of course from the fact that the state would then have to throw up prefabs to accommodate the former fee paying pupils. What would that cost the state?

Dionysus

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

A very relevant article appeared in The Irish Times today:

Fee-paying schools engaged in 'apartheid'

SEÁN FLYNN, Education Editor

THE TEACHERS’ Union of Ireland (TUI) is to press for the withdrawal of State funding from fee-paying schools engaged in what it calls “educational apartheid’’.

In a move that will intensify pressure on Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn on the issue, the union is to demand an audit of admission policies at its annual conference next week. The last such audit in 2005 excluded the 56 fee-paying schools in the State.

The TUI says the new audit is necessary amid claims that some fee-paying schools are engaged in “apartheid’’ by excluding migrant children, Travellers and those with special learning needs.

Department of Education figures have consistently shown that provision for special needs and other minority pupils is largely concentrated in State schools and poorer areas. Some fee-paying schools have almost no provision for minority students.

The TUI move comes after Labour leader Eamon Gilmore signalled his unease about the increasingly “two-tier’’ nature of Irish education during the recent election campaign. Any move however to abolish State support for fee-paying schools would be resisted by Fine Gael Ministers.

TUI general secretary Peter MacMenamin said last night that the anger of teachers over the issue was growing. “Many of our members feel that certain schools are doing everything in their power to discourage those with special educational need, in blatant violation of equality and education legislation.” This, he said, was being facilitated by the department’s “inaction” on the issue.

Next week’s conference will hear motions demanding the abolition of what delegates label the €100 million “State funding of privilege” funded by the taxpayer. The leadership backs the phased withdrawal of funding from those schools guilty of discrimination.

Catholic groups are also increaing pressure on fee-paying schools to be more inclusive.

In a position paper on school patronage, the Catholic Schools Partnership, an umbrella group providing support for all partners in the Republic’s Catholic schools, said: “Catholic fee-paying schools must make serious efforts to reach out to socially deprived communities, to pupils with special needs and to foster an ever deeper sense of social awareness . . . Otherwise, they risk becoming a sign that is contradictory in terms of Christ’s mission.”

Ireland is one of the few countries where the State pays the salaries of teachers in private schools. This allows fee-paying schools to use fee income to boost its range of school services and facilities.

The department’s figures show that fee-paying schools received more than €100 million in support from the taxpayer last year.

Dublin’s Blackrock College received €4.2 million to cover the cost of 58 teacher salaries. St Andrew’s College, received €3.6 million to cover annual salaries for 52 teachers.

The 2009 McCarthy report on public service estimated that fee-paying schools generated about €100 million in annual fee income from parents. This income is over and above that generated by fees averaging over €5,000 a year for day pupils and up to €16,000 a year for boarders.

Source: Fee-paying schools engaged in 'apartheid'

Lauder

If the state subsidy towards private schools is removed - parents who chose to send their children to be privately educated will be double-taxed.

The most equatable solution would be to remove the state subsidy for private schools and then to allow schools fees to be then totally tax deductible to parents who chose to send their children to be privately educated. Otherwise, removal of this subsidy would be grossly unfair.

jahalpin

The state has a responsibility to pay for the education of all its citizens. The state pays for the salaries of all full-time permanent primary and secondary teachers in the state as they are employees of the Dept. of Education. Teacher numbers are based on numbers of pupils in the school. The number of pupils per FT-equivalent funded teaching post is lower in state schools than in provate schools.

All schools recieve a grant towards the cost of running the schools based on the number of pupils. The private schools actually recieve less from the state than the wholy state funded schools. Therefore the state is not "subsidising" the private schools, but rather, under the current system, the private schools are actually saving the state money.

The private schools use the fees recieved to make up for the short-fall of state funding and to provide better facilities for their students

Mixed bag

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

i sent my children to private schools as we are Protestant. On reflection, I have some thoughts
1 the education was not as good as what I myself experienced in a northern Ireland grammar school. Poor work ethic. Lack of academic integrity. A lot of snobbery
2 catholic pupils at the fee paying secondary schools were from very high income brackets , and not the lower socio economic classes. They sometimes received preferential treatment from teachers because of their status
3 Protestant schools in the 1990 s raised their fees and a lot of Protestants could no longer send their children to the fee paying schools. They seemed to want catholic pupils to promote pluralism, or for financial gain? South Dublin Protestant schools guilty of this. Places like Kilkenny college and wilsons hospital more true to their own communities.
4 Protestant parents sometimes realised their children would receive a better education in the local catholic schools..it has been my observation that those children did much better in life
5 I don't know what a Protestant ethos in a southern Irish school is meant to be...prejudice against non conformists, minority Protestant groups , such as the evangelical groups or home churches is very apparent.
6

philologos

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

Mixed bag wrote: »

5 I don't know what a Protestant ethos in a southern Irish school is meant to be...prejudice against non conformists, minority Protestant groups , such as the evangelical groups or home churches is very apparent.
6

What's Protestantism meant to be about? Heck what's Christianity meant to be about. Jesus Christ, what He taught how He lived, and how He came to rescue us from sin. Unfortunately, you don't see a lot of schools standing up for it.

On the other hand, I don't know what prejudice you're talking about. I went to a private Protestant faith school in Dublin. I never saw any prejudice to non-conformists or evangelicals. Indeed, there were a few evangelical Christians in my year, some of them got me curious about it as a teenager.

B.A._Baracus

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

On one hand you have a public school that gets funding from the government - every child deserves an education. So by funding public schools the government is allowing all children to learn. Working class, middle class, upper class etc. A very good thing.


On the other hand you have a private school, which charges parents a yearly fee for their child to learn in this school. Is that not a business tho?