Public funding of private schools.

JustinDee

DuncanDoughnut wrote: »

If I was an employer and two equally qualified candidates were applying for a job in my business, and one went to a private school and the other to a public, I would choose the candidate who went to the public school.

Why the generalistic selection?

anymore

A person who smokes 20 cigarettes a day can afford to send a kid to a fee paying school (Day school ) So how are they elitist ?

HavingCrack

anymore wrote: »

A person who smokes 20 cigarettes a day can afford to send a kid to a fee paying school (Day school ) So how are they elitist ?

What sort of metaphor is that

anymore

HavingCrack wrote: »

What sort of metaphor is that

The price of twenty cigarettes a day will finance the attendance of a kid at many of our day attendance fee paying schools so it shows that sending a kid to a fee paying school is not confined only to an elite. But the message that is given out when discussing fee paying schools is that you have to be wealthy; this is not true and should be reflected in the debate. However to do this would be to undermine many of the attacks on these schools. It would be a kind of ideological heresy to admit that many people of relatives modest incomes do make the choice of cutting back on some luxuries or other in order to educate thier children - it is called being a parent !
The irony is of course that the children of TDs are far more advantaged in terms of future prospects because of the connections of thier parents than the kids of the average fee attending school kid ! But of course admitting that would also be heresy !:eek:

davoxx

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Parents who choose to send their children to private schools are tax payers too, so as taxpayers they are entitled to free education like everybody else.

They are entitled to FREE education, and they are called public schools.

(I like in uk that "public" schools are private.)

For me this is simple:
Public = for everyone, no discrimination.
Private = do what every you want.

Aslong as:
Public = funded by the government (ie the public)
Private = funded by themselves.

Otherwise I want a public swimming pool, for me and my friends only, paid by the state.

Kosseegan

RandolphEsq wrote: »

. Parents who choose to send their children to private schools are tax payers too, so as taxpayers they are entitled to free education like everybody else.

So they want to piggy back the system?
If private schools were not subsidised there would be a major saving for the taxpayer. Most private schools are in Dublin. Within the same districts there are public schools which are half empty. Classes are half full. Synge street, O' Connell Schools, Oatlands College, Marian College etc. There is a state provided system available. If people don't wish to avail of it, they should go to a 100% privately funded school. If more children of the upper and aspiring upper middle classes went to state funded schools there would be a much more vocal lobby for an increase in standards which would benefit all students.

Kalimah

dan_d wrote: »

I don't think it's a punishment as such.

The part we're overlooking here is that these schools cater to a minority. They are intended to be for those children whose parents are very wealthy (and more). People who can foot the bill regardless of expense. Yes, you will have a small number whose parents sacrifice a lot to have their kids in them, but they tend to be in the minority, and then some. These schools often offer scholarships for kids who can achieve good results but whose parents can't afford the fees.

The lines became very blurred during the Celtic Tiger. A lot of people liked to see themselves as wealthy, and as a part of that, to have their kids in the "right" schools. They couldn't necessarily afford it, but with cheap credit and low taxes they managed. There's a lifestyle that goes with those schools too....holidays in the right places (preferably numerous times a year), the right clothes outside the school uniform, the right home address, the right car (once you hit a certain age)....the list goes on. It's a whole lot more than affording the fees. You need to afford the lifestyle too. If we're comparing with the UK, look at the type of people who go to public school there (their private system). It's a certain type of person, and that will not change any time soon.

I've no doubt people will drop on me like a ton of bricks for those comments, but I've seen family members pass through a variety of these schools, at varying stages over the last 10 years and from my observations, that's how it works. It's a closed shop. Everyone knows everyone and they're quite reluctant to admit outsiders. I will say that if you go to a public school, you tend to get a much wider, more balanced view of the world. But as with everything, that depends on the person and everyone's experience is different.

I'm not saying they're better or worse. Because they cater to a small number percentage of the population, their class sizes are smaller. However I've heard anecdotally that if a child is in one of these schools and is struggling academically, it's often suggested to the parents that they might do better in another school. There's an element of cherry picking the students - again, within the group of those who can afford it. They rely heavily on the fees, and let's face it, how do you sell your school to parents who think their child will get a better education in a private school, if they know of kids who got poor marks there? Even if the poor marks were more to do with the child's natural ability, and less to do with the teacher - most parents think the teacher is to blame for everything, especially if they are the kind of people who think that handing over huge fees automatically entitles the child to high marks and huge prospects. (not saying everyone thinks that, but some do).

It still doesn't justify them getting state aid. The parents of children in these schools can afford these prices. The removal of state aid would have little impact, I'd imagine on most of them.

Completely and utterly agree. One of the reasons why despite pressure from an inlaw we didn't send ours to private schools.

Kalimah

anymore wrote: »

A person who smokes 20 cigarettes a day can afford to send a kid to a fee paying school (Day school ) So how are they elitist ?

8.55 x 365 is 3120.75. As far as I remember the likes of St Mary's and Belvedere charge the bones of 5k for a pupil. I had three children in secondary at the one time until recently. Unless we gave up eating we couldn't afford to send ours to private school. Not that I ever wanted to.

anymore

Kalimah wrote: »

8.55 x 365 is 3120.75. As far as I remember the likes of St Mary's and Belvedere charge the bones of 5k for a pupil. I had three children in secondary at the one time until recently. Unless we gave up eating we couldn't afford to send ours to private school. Not that I ever wanted to.

Thanks for the calculation and my apologies; you can actually send a kid to a fee paying school FOR LESS THAN THE PRICE OF twenty cigarettes depending on what school you send them too !
I am sorry you were unable to continue sending your kids to thier school, but three kids fees would be hard to afford for many. But the point remains, you were at least for a period sending 3 and i take it you are not wealthy. Frankly, I can point to ' ordinary families' who can, apparently. spend thousands on their two weeks in the sun and noone calls them elitist ! Where is the logic ?

anymore

dan_d wrote: »

I don't think it's a punishment as such.

The part we're overlooking here is that these schools cater to a minority. They are intended to be for those children whose parents are very wealthy (and more). People who can foot the bill regardless of expense. Yes, you will have a small number whose parents sacrifice a lot to have their kids in them, but they tend to be in the minority, and then some. These schools often offer scholarships for kids who can achieve good results but whose parents can't afford the fees.

The lines became very blurred during the Celtic Tiger. A lot of people liked to see themselves as wealthy, and as a part of that, to have their kids in the "right" schools. They couldn't necessarily afford it, but with cheap credit and low taxes they managed. There's a lifestyle that goes with those schools too....holidays in the right places (preferably numerous times a year), the right clothes outside the school uniform, the right home address, the right car (once you hit a certain age)....the list goes on. It's a whole lot more than affording the fees. You need to afford the lifestyle too. If we're comparing with the UK, look at the type of people who go to public school there (their private system). It's a certain type of person, and that will not change any time soon.

I've no doubt people will drop on me like a ton of bricks for those comments, but I've seen family members pass through a variety of these schools, at varying stages over the last 10 years and from my observations, that's how it works. It's a closed shop. Everyone knows everyone and they're quite reluctant to admit outsiders. I will say that if you go to a public school, you tend to get a much wider, more balanced view of the world. But as with everything, that depends on the person and everyone's experience is different.

I'm not saying they're better or worse. Because they cater to a small number percentage of the population, their class sizes are smaller. However I've heard anecdotally that if a child is in one of these schools and is struggling academically, it's often suggested to the parents that they might do better in another school. There's an element of cherry picking the students - again, within the group of those who can afford it. They rely heavily on the fees, and let's face it, how do you sell your school to parents who think their child will get a better education in a private school, if they know of kids who got poor marks there? Even if the poor marks were more to do with the child's natural ability, and less to do with the teacher - most parents think the teacher is to blame for everything, especially if they are the kind of people who think that handing over huge fees automatically entitles the child to high marks and huge prospects. (not saying everyone thinks that, but some do).

It still doesn't justify them getting state aid. The parents of children in these schools can afford these prices. The removal of state aid would have little impact, I'd imagine on most of them.

I dont have time to respond to each point, so will just deal with a few. First of all, the fee paying schools I know, give primary priority for entrance to those whose parents, siblings or grandparents attended the schools. That policy does not represent academic cherry picking. and the vast majority of fee paying schools will have students who meet those criteria. Bear in mind that up to ' free secondary schools' in the sixties, i think,many or most secondaries would have been fee paying to some extent - I am open to correction on that.
The average fee paying schools have kids attending from fairly ordinary midddle class areas with parents who are not by reasonable standards ' wealthy'. If you have one or two kids, then sending one or both to a fee paying school is affordable if you are Mr or Mrs Ordinary - you may not be able to send them to boarding or the most expensive fee paying schools but the same applies to many things in life.
Rather than protesting against fee paying schools, what should be done is to analyse why people feel these are ' superior' schools that give an allegedly ' superior' education. Would you agree ?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

anymore wrote: »

The irony is of course that the children of TDs are far more advantaged in terms of future prospects because of the connections of thier parents than the kids of the average fee attending school kid ! But of course admitting that would also be heresy !:eek:

I'm well aware this is the case and I doubt many people have a problem recognizing it.

whatstherush

anymore wrote: »

I dont have time to respond to each point, so will just deal with a few. First of all, the fee paying schools I know, give primary priority for entrance to those whose parents, siblings or grandparents attended the schools. That policy does not represent academic cherry picking. and the vast majority of fee paying schools will have students who meet those criteria. Bear in mind that up to ' free secondary schools' in the sixties, i think,many or most secondaries would have been fee paying to some extent - I am open to correction on that.
The average fee paying schools have kids attending from fairly ordinary midddle class areas with parents who are not by reasonable standards ' wealthy'. If you have one or two kids, then sending one or both to a fee paying school is affordable if you are Mr or Mrs Ordinary - you may not be able to send them to boarding or the most expensive fee paying schools but the same applies to many things in life.
Rather than protesting against fee paying schools, what should be done is to analyse why people feel these are ' superior' schools that give an allegedly ' superior' education. Would you agree ?

The cost of fees and what type of person can afford them are irrelevant. Why do you feel the state should subsidize the personal choice of people to use private institutions when they already provide a public equivalent.
This idea that you can ring fence a certain amount of the tax you pay and allocate to a private institution doesn't happen in any other sector.

anymore

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I'm well aware this is the case and I doubt many people have a problem recognizing it.

And yet it is in many cases Tds who are leading the charge against fee paying school;s
Look at Eamon Gilmores wife, she is I believe in a very well paid PS position. Between them they are earning in the region of or over € 200,000 ( when he was just an opposition TD ). Please, these people are part of the 'elite' with defined benefits pensions. Put a capital value on thier pensions alone and they are multimillionaires. Add the net value of whatever properties and how much is thier worth ?
These people are the elite, thier kids, if they have any, are the wealthy kids of the future . So if some plumber of corner shop owner wants to spend € 3,000/4,000 a year sending the kid to a fee paying school, then TDs shouldnt demonise but should say them fair dues to them.

anymore

whatstherush wrote: »

The cost of fees and what type of person can afford them are irrelevant. Why do you feel the state should subsidize the personal choice of people to use private institutions when they already provide a public equivalent.
This idea that you can ring fence a certain amount of the tax you pay and allocate to a private institution doesn't happen in any other sector.

Well as a parent I made my personal choice as reagrds what state, public primary and secondary school my kids attended ! Well to tell the truth it was my - she is far more organised than me. And guess what, she picked them on the basis of reputation and alleged record of the schools. Because, guess what, loads of parents sending kids to state schools use the very same criteria as parents sending kids to fee paying schools. And yes not every parent will get the first chioce state school, but then not every parent desirous of sending their kid to a fee paying school will necessarily get thier first choice either.
And whats more, the state pays for teachers in state schools just as they pay for teachers in fee paying schools. Fee paying schools recruit thier teachers from the same pool of teachers as state schools, so tell me where exactly is the big advantage, where does the subsidy come in ?

whatstherush

anymore wrote: »

where does the subsidy come in ?

You answered your own question.

anymore wrote: »

they pay for teachers in fee paying schools

anymore

whatstherush wrote: »

You answered your own question.

YES They pay for teachers in fee paying schools and they pay for teachers in state schools, so what is the difference ?????? A subsidy can only apply if more money is paid to the fee paying schools.
And by the way, from what many posters say about the ' well parents' of the fee paying students, a far higher proportion of fee paying parents will be paying income tax at the higher rate and a far higher percentage of parents in state schools will be paying tax at standard rate or will not be paying income tax at all. So, it is really the parents of kids at fee paying schools who can be said to be subsidising state schools and not the other way around. One of the remarkable things about Ireland is the propsensity of people who dont pay income tax to talk about ' our money' !:eek:

whatstherush

anymore wrote: »

YES They pay for teachers in fee paying schools and they pay for teachers in state schools, so what is the difference ?????? A subsidy can only apply if more money is paid to the fee paying schools.
And by the way, from what many posters say about the ' well parents' of the fee paying students, a far higher proportion of fee paying parents will be paying income tax at the higher rate and a far higher percentage of parents in state schools will be paying tax at standard rate or will not be paying income tax at all. So, it is really the parents of kids at fee paying schools who can be said to be subsidising state schools and not the other way around. One of the remarkable things about Ireland is the propsensity of people who dont pay income tax to talk about ' our money' !:eek:

As I mentioned before you can't ring fence the tax you pay and say since I pay x amount tax and the state uses a portion of that tax to provide a service, you want the same portion to go to a private institution to provide the same service. It doesn't happen with any other service or sector.

Kalimah

anymore wrote: »

Thanks for the calculation and my apologies; you can actually send a kid to a fee paying school FOR LESS THAN THE PRICE OF twenty cigarettes depending on what school you send them too !
I am sorry you were unable to continue sending your kids to thier school, but three kids fees would be hard to afford for many. But the point remains, you were at least for a period sending 3 and i take it you are not wealthy. Frankly, I can point to ' ordinary families' who can, apparently. spend thousands on their two weeks in the sun and noone calls them elitist ! Where is the logic ?

Sorry you misunderstood. All mine went/are at a state school

Jo King

anymore wrote: »

YES They pay for teachers in fee paying schools and they pay for teachers in state schools, so what is the difference ?????? A subsidy can only apply if more money is paid to the fee paying schools.
And by the way, from what many posters say about the ' well parents' of the fee paying students, a far higher proportion of fee paying parents will be paying income tax at the higher rate and a far higher percentage of parents in state schools will be paying tax at standard rate or will not be paying income tax at all. So, it is really the parents of kids at fee paying schools who can be said to be subsidising state schools and not the other way around. One of the remarkable things about Ireland is the propsensity of people who dont pay income tax to talk about ' our money' !:eek:

If the state stopped paying teachers salaries in private schools there would be a drop in the numbers of teachers. Under-utilised state schools would be brought up to capacity. The whole point of taxation is to take it from those who can afford it and give it to those who can't. Why should people who can well afford to pay be given taxpayers money to achieve the educational outcome they want for their children?

The current situation is ridiculous. Pay a less than economic fee to a private school school and get into a subsidised college course. Go to a state school and go to work and pay to subsidise the third level student and the wealthy private school student.

anymore

whatstherush wrote: »

As I mentioned before you can't ring fence the tax you pay and say since I pay x amount tax and the state uses a portion of that tax to provide a service, you want the same portion to go to a private institution to provide the same service. It doesn't happen with any other service or sector.

You are quite wrong about that ! Agriculture, or different segments of it are highly subsidised by both the EU and State though not all sectors of agriculture are subsidised to the same extent - there may even be some sectors of the agricultural industry which dont get subsidised. The arts and cultural sector are massievly subsidised both by direct grants and tax exemptions. So too for horse and greyhound racing, all private companies and private institutions - ask labour's Sean Sherlock about it ! The state through IDA subsides a whole varity of job creation and maintenance in the private sector and of course we have had the recent car scrappage subsidy scheme. In fact it is getting harder to think of areas that arennt state subsidised - we have of course GAA 'shamateurism'. So why pick on fee paying schools when they are just getting the same subsidy as so called ' state schools'. I say so called because a very high number of these schools dont actually ' belong ' to the state at all !

anymore

Jo King wrote: »

If the state stopped paying teachers salaries in private schools there would be a drop in the numbers of teachers. Under-utilised state schools would be brought up to capacity. The whole point of taxation is to take it from those who can afford it and give it to those who can't. Why should people who can well afford to pay be given taxpayers money to achieve the educational outcome they want for their children?

The current situation is ridiculous. Pay a less than economic fee to a private school school and get into a subsidised college course. Go to a state school and go to work and pay to subsidise the third level student and the wealthy private school student.

If there are underutilised state schools, then why is that so ?
Why is the point of taxtaion to take from those who ' allegedly' can afford it and give to those who cant ? Who decided that Stalin, Mao, Karl MARX ?
Why should the parents of kids from what is usually a very productive sector of society be isolated and demonised for giving a damn about thier kids education ? And again fee paying schools are not subsidised - they receive the same monies as other schools. Do you complain about the horse racing industry ( Read gambling industry) being subsidised ?

Milk & Honey

anymore wrote: »

If there are underutilised state schools, then why is that so ?

State schools are under-utilised for one reason - snobbery.

anymore wrote: »

Why should the parents of kids from what is usually a very productive sector of society be isolated and demonised for giving a damn about thier kids education ?

A lot of kids in state schools are the children of protected professionals such as medics and lawyers. Productive? More like parasitic. All so Junior can get into a protected profession herself.

anymore wrote: »

And again fee paying schools are not subsidised - they receive the same monies as other schools.

IF they are receiving state monies they are being subsidised. State schools are 100% subsidised, private schools less so but still heavily subsidised.

anymore wrote: »

Do you complain about the horse racing industry ( Read gambling industry) being subsidised ?

Schools are not an industry. I do not object to schools being subsidised. I object to some schools which are subsidised.

anymore

Milk & Honey wrote: »

State schools are under-utilised for one reason - snobbery.



A lot of kids in state schools are the children of protected professionals such as medics and lawyers. Productive? More like parasitic. All so Junior can get into a protected profession herself.



IF they are receiving state monies they are being subsidised. State schools are 100% subsidised, private schools less so but still heavily subsidised.



Schools are not an industry. I do not object to schools being subsidised. I object to some schools which are subsidised.

Sounds like an awful lot of anger and envy there.
Tell me, if you were to undergo an operation would you like to have the best surgeon operating if you could, you know one of the ' elite', or would settle for any old surgeon ?

SerialComplaint

anymore wrote: »

Why should the parents of kids from what is usually a very productive sector of society be isolated and demonised for giving a damn about thier kids education ?

Parents of kids in private sector schools don't have a monopoly on 'giving a damn about their kids education'.

Milk & Honey

anymore wrote: »

Sounds like an awful lot of anger and envy there.
Tell me, if you were to undergo an operation would you like to have the best surgeon operating if you could, you know one of the ' elite', or would settle for any old surgeon ?

If I was being operated on I would be far happier not to be operated on by a surgeon who is working far more hours than are good for him because the caste he belongs to have manipulated the system to ensure that there are not enough surgeons qualified, who has not qualified because his daddy was a surgeon before him, who does not have a complex about treating lesser mortals who did not go to private school and speak with strangulated vowels and who is concerned lest his little darlings mix with the riff raff from state schools. My chances in this country are slim.

anymore

Milk & Honey wrote: »

If I was being operated on I would be far happier not to be operated on by a surgeon who is working far more hours than are good for him because the caste he belongs to have manipulated the system to ensure that there are not enough surgeons qualified, who has not qualified because his daddy was a surgeon before him, who does not have a complex about treating lesser mortals who did not go to private school and speak with strangulated vowels and who is concerned lest his little darlings mix with the riff raff from state schools. My chances in this country are slim.

God God !:eek: If I had that big a chip on my shoulder, I would be visiting my chiroporactor twice a week every week ! I thought you were involved in some capacity in the legal field, so I assume you are part of that elite ?
' Caste ' is not really expression that you hear very much in Ireland, so I am not quite sure how you mean it Nothwithstanding what you feel about the medical profession, if you had the choice,would you prefer to be operated on by one of the best in the field or by any available surgeon ?

anymore

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Parents of kids in private sector schools don't have a monopoly on 'giving a damn about their kids education'.

Yes I know, I am one of the public sector parents who do care but i am inclined to believe on average those in fee paying schools are more likely to. If we had access to absentee rates, it might be helpful. However, I will use a cruder measure; a house where the only newspaper available is the a tabloid, the sun or star etc, is less likely to be one where the interest in education is very high and that is more likley to happen in the public sector.

bath handle

anymore wrote: »

God God !:eek: Nothwithstanding what you feel about the medical profession, if you had the choice,would you prefer to be operated on by one of the best in the field or by any available surgeon ?

What has that got to do with the state subsidising private schools? Does having attended a private school or have children who attend private school make one a better surgeon?