17,000 euros pa to send a Child to Clongowes

nice_guy80

anybody who argues for private schools obviously went to one themselves or is of the opinion that you can get a superior education from it

wrong.
some people who I know went to private school and did worse than those who stayed at the local public secondary school.
some did ok.
but very few excelled. I think mammy and daddy were a tad disappointed...

it is elitist.
it deprives money from being spend on public education
it denies some of the best teachers to public schools as the private schools can offer higher salaries (oh yes they do!!!)

davoxx

Dades wrote: »

You seem to be stating the obvious here... so let's shelve this one.

well i was saying that it seemed that with the "we'd have to forget it" that their education would be finished and ruined if it were not a private school.

Dades wrote: »

The net effect being no financial benefit to the State, and a whole class of people lose the option to send their kids to a private school, leaving it even more elite than it was before (which, currently, it really isn't).

well there would be a financial gain, is what i am arguing, though the main point is that at worse case scenario there is no loss, but plenty of options to gain, ie more funding for public schools, and zero funding of teachers for private schools would save some amount of cash.

Dades wrote: »

Very confused as to what the idea behind this is, or what how it relates to the question of State/private schools.

just that perhaps all schools could be better if they charged students like colleges ... you know like how private schools charge parents.
or if all parents were charged, with grants given to the needy, then perhaps parents would not feel victimised that they are saving for a child's education, as everyone with children would. and the state would save money!!

Dades wrote: »

So I should save for 12 years, forgoing foreign holidays, Marks & Spencers and a new (second-hand) car to donate 20 grand to a public school and claim a tax rebate? Curious.

no, you should only do that to donate it to a private school where lesser off parents will not be able to attend because the only thing they can sacrifice is food.

Chucky the tree

nice_guy80 wrote: »

anybody who argues for private schools obviously went to one themselves or is of the opinion that you can get a superior education from it

wrong.
some people who I know went to private school and did worse than those who stayed at the local public secondary school.
some did ok.
but very few excelled. I think mammy and daddy were a tad disappointed...

it is elitist.
it deprives money from being spend on public education
it denies some of the best teachers to public schools as the private schools can offer higher salaries (oh yes they do!!!)

Or some people just don't want to have to spend extra money on increased taxes because we cut funding for private schools.

nice_guy80

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Or some people just don't want to have to spend extra money on increased taxes because we cut funding for private schools.

the parents would just have to pay extra fees.
that ain't taxes.

their taxes already provide ample amount of schools with places for their kids.
they just choose not to send them, but opt for the private schools.
why should all the other taxpayers subsidise their decision?
its crazy.

Chucky the tree

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the parents would just have to pay extra fees.
that ain't taxes.

their taxes already provide ample amount of schools with places for their kids.
they just choose not to send them, but opt for the private schools.
why should all the other taxpayers subsidise their decision?
its crazy.

The problem is not all parents could afford doule the fees, so those kids would have to go into public schools, which will mean either an increase in class sizes or an increase in the size of the school by building more classroooms. We should subsidies their decision because it is cheaper for us.

nice_guy80

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The problem is not all parents could afford doule the fees, so those kids would have to go into public schools, which will mean either an increase in class sizes or an increase in the size of the school by building more classroooms. We should subsidies their decision because it is cheaper for us.

er, no it ain't.
if the number of kids in a public school goes up, then they get allocated more teachers.
so cut the payment of teachers' salaries in the private school and hire these teachers in public schools

how many of the children are sent from rural areas to these privae schools - a significant number. There are plenty of schools for them to attend

in Dublin and Cork city, there are more than enough public secondary schools to cater for these children. a lot of them actually commute to get to these schools! go to school in your own area!! Stop having other tax payers subsidise your private education.

Cavehill Red

I've said much of this before in previous debates on this topic, so I'll keep it brief.

I'm a single parent on a very limited income currently. I send my child to a private school and do so because when I suddenly obtained custody some years back and tried 42 schools in my vicinity in Dublin, not one had a place available (though some magically found places for migrant children and refugee claimants subsequently.)

I was informed by the Dept of Education that I risked prosecution if I failed to send my child to school, but they did nothing to secure a place in a school for my child. I was lucky to find a place in a private school and having no other option available, I sent the child there.

I'd be perfectly happy not to have to shell out thousands of euro I can ill afford. I'd have no problem sending my child to a public school if one had been available. My child is in their LC year, so an increase in fees won't affect me. But had they hiked them even by a couple of hundred euro this year, I doubt I could have afforded it.

In the past few years, many parents at the school have lost jobs, seen wages and pensions slashed, had businesses go under, seen their taxes hiked through the roof, just like many others in Ireland. I can assure you that in this school, which charges one of the lower fees, was to increase fees by any significant amount, there would be a cascade of kids heading to any public school they could get into. I know this because many of my child's friends have done so in the past year or two.

In the event that fees were doubled, I estimate that most if not nearly all of the parents would pull their children out and the school would close. From what I know of other fee-paying schools. similar would occur there too.

And as has been made repeatedly clear on this thread, private schools actually function to limit the cost to the taxpayer of educating these children, as parents like me subsidise the cost of the education. I'm happy not to have to pay. Are you happy to pay extra just for the feeling of misplaced class solidarity that comes with limiting parental education choice?

How much is that feeling of one-size-fits-all, anti-constitutional, discriminatory to religious minorities, camaraderie worth to you? A couple of hundred million in extra taxes? Are you prepared to pay that?

Lockstep

andrew wrote: »

I think part of the reason state schools are comparatively worse than private schools is that there's a lack of political will to do anything about state schools. While I've no data on this, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of those in power didn't go to state schools. Further, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who go to private schools are solidly middle or upper middle class (though obviously not all middle class people/politicians etc went to private school.) Combined, the 'middle classes,' plus those actually in politics, are the ones with a disproportionate amount of clout when it comes to government policy. This is for a few reasons. Politicians obviously influence policy by virtue of the fact that they set the agenda, create policies etc. The middle class tends to be more educated and politically aware, for a host of reasons which mainly boil down to them having significantly more social and cultural capital and influence.

If these people don't have to send their children to state schools, then they have no personal incentive to significantly improve the quality of state schools; they don't really have to care that state schools aren't really that good. As such, they don't bother actually implementing policies to improve state schools, not out of malice, but simply because the neither know personally of the problems in state schools, and will never need to encounter such problems personally. As a result, I think in principal at least, that private schooling should be abolished. The people with the power to change the educational system should be forced to suffer the consequences of their actions or lack of action on the issue. In the long term, I think that this would significantly improve the place of education on the political agenda.

In the short term, I think that if it makes economic sense to remove state funding from private schools, that this should be done. Surely it wouldn't be that hard to figure out the costs/benefits of such an action. I can't think of any principled reasons as to why the state should fund private schools at all.

It was worth reading this thread for this post. Nail on head.

I'm sympathetic if you live in an area where the public option is a violent, drug infested hellhole but not every school is like this. I (and all my siblings) went to tax funded/no fee schools and I think we turned out ok :P

nice_guy80

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I've said much of this before in previous debates on this topic, so I'll keep it brief.

I'm a single parent on a very limited income currently. I send my child to a private school and do so because when I suddenly obtained custody some years back and tried 42 schools in my vicinity in Dublin, not one had a place available (though some magically found places for migrant children and refugee claimants subsequently.)

I was informed by the Dept of Education that I risked prosecution if I failed to send my child to school, but they did nothing to secure a place in a school for my child. I was lucky to find a place in a private school and having no other option available, I sent the child there.

I'd be perfectly happy not to have to shell out thousands of euro I can ill afford. I'd have no problem sending my child to a public school if one had been available. My child is in their LC year, so an increase in fees won't affect me. But had they hiked them even by a couple of hundred euro this year, I doubt I could have afforded it.

In the past few years, many parents at the school have lost jobs, seen wages and pensions slashed, had businesses go under, seen their taxes hiked through the roof, just like many others in Ireland. I can assure you that in this school, which charges one of the lower fees, was to increase fees by any significant amount, there would be a cascade of kids heading to any public school they could get into. I know this because many of my child's friends have done so in the past year or two.

In the event that fees were doubled, I estimate that most if not nearly all of the parents would pull their children out and the school would close. From what I know of other fee-paying schools. similar would occur there too.

And as has been made repeatedly clear on this thread, private schools actually function to limit the cost to the taxpayer of educating these children, as parents like me subsidise the cost of the education. I'm happy not to have to pay. Are you happy to pay extra just for the feeling of misplaced class solidarity that comes with limiting parental education choice?

How much is that feeling of one-size-fits-all, anti-constitutional, discriminatory to religious minorities, camaraderie worth to you? A couple of hundred million in extra taxes? Are you prepared to pay that?

I've read through the thread and no-where does anyone clearly explain how it is cheaper for the state to educate children in private schools. Because the department of ed. still have to pay the teachers' salaries!

Private schools have mainly discriminatory enrollment policies. Look at their provision for special needs children - non existant, despite being funded by the taxpayer. how many travellers go to private schools? they'd be well able to afford it too.

I am sure that your situation might have necessitated the enrollment in a private school due to the child not starting in a public school. Most others are not in that position. Your own situation and exeperience is directing your thinking on the matter.

However, while I am in fabour of the private option being there for parents if they wish to pay, it should not be putting public schools at a disadvantage. Which the current policy does.

Why??? Because the private school can put the fees into extra teachers, extra curricular activities such as sport, art, music and facilities that the average public school would never be able to afford.

Cavehill Red

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I've read through the thread and no-where does anyone clearly explain how it is cheaper for the state to educate children in private schools. Because the department of ed. still have to pay the teachers' salaries!

Whereas in public schools the department of education have to pay for everything. Therefore, if all the private school students switch to public schools, the department has to pay not only for their teaching but for everything else. Which is more than they pay currently, to the tune of eight figures annually.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Private schools have mainly discriminatory enrollment policies. Look at their provision for special needs children - non existant, despite being funded by the taxpayer. how many travellers go to private schools? they'd be well able to afford it too.

I couldn't tell you how many schools refused my child because no relatives had attended. It was most of them anyway. I'm from the North and my child's mother is from a rural area. So my child was therefore discriminated against in exactly the way you describe by PUBLIC schools, not private ones. You're wrong about the special needs thing, incidentally. I know - my child has special needs.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I am sure that your situation might have necessitated the enrollment in a private school due to the child not starting in a public school. Most others are not in that position. Your own situation and exeperience is directing your thinking on the matter.

To the extent that I resent being threatened with arrest and jail by the same department which has hundreds of well-paid staff who appear to do little other than circulate letters to schools, while singularly failing to assist me in securing a place in a school for my child, I might agree. However, it is a matter of fact and not opinion that parents of children in private schools subsidise their children's education in a way that would fall on the state if they did not do so.
Just like the so-called 'bailout' of Ireland by the EU/IMF (which in reality is a bailout of European banks by the Irish taxpayer), the so-called 'subsidy' of private school places by the state is in fact a subsidy of state-provided education by private school parents. As I said, I'm happy not to pay. Lump the cost on general taxation, and I and other parents will save money, while the taxpayer will pay more. Sounds good to me. Are you willing to pay?

nice_guy80 wrote: »

However, while I am in fabour of the private option being there for parents if they wish to pay, it should not be putting public schools at a disadvantage. Which the current policy does.

How does it do so? School rankings indicate this is not the case.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Why??? Because the private school can put the fees into extra teachers, extra curricular activities such as sport, art, music and facilities that the average public school would never be able to afford.

That's simple envy. It's unrelated to the issue of state funding of teacher wages. Parents choose to pay for those things. Parents in some public schools pay 'contributions' to achieve similar aims. I'm not sure what you want - from your post it seems you desire a singular level of education across the board, which is only achievable by the lowest common denominator.

Chucky the tree

nice_guy80 wrote: »

er, no it ain't.
if the number of kids in a public school goes up, then they get allocated more teachers.
so cut the payment of teachers' salaries in the private school and hire these teachers in public schools

how many of the children are sent from rural areas to these privae schools - a significant number. There are plenty of schools for them to attend

in Dublin and Cork city, there are more than enough public secondary schools to cater for these children. a lot of them actually commute to get to these schools! go to school in your own area!! Stop having other tax payers subsidise your private education.

Where does new teachers and pupils go? Starting teaching them out in the school yard? I hope you are not going to claim every public school has a large amount of classrooms simply lying competely empty and un-used.

astrofool

davoxx wrote: »

well there is actually, it is called an educated estimate.


by your own argument, you don't know that.
i'll explain that clearer, if we don't know how many would stop, we don't know how many would stay, therefore, following your own broken logic, we can't assume that there is a saving either.

i am on the other hand saying that private schools are costing the state money, because i know that 100% of students will not leave for public education.


well fair play for going to public school, but your argument is broken, so hopefully you will now argue correctly against state funded private schools.

So you're completely clueless either way, but insist you are correct?

ressem

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Where does new teachers and pupils go? Starting teaching them out in the school yard? I hope you are not going to claim every public school has a large amount of classrooms simply lying competely empty and un-used.

The department of education has plenty of experience renting 'premium' prefabs from private operators. So for the first 13 thousand students (50% of total private), can we put down for 500 prefabs at the usual annual rent.

Lockstep

ressem wrote: »

The department of education has plenty of experience renting 'premium' prefabs from private operators. So for the first 13 thousand students (50% of total private), can we put down for 500 prefabs at the usual annual rent.

Yeah, I don't see the problem with kids being educated in prefabs. I was in one for 2 years and there were no problems.

Crazy Horse 6

pebbles21 wrote: »

Im sure Mr O Leary has paid more than his fair share back into the economy since,and if schools like this produce more Mr O Leary's then i don't see a problem tbh...

The school should be knocked down for educating O'Leary imo.

Zulu

Quality input into the discussion there.

Dades

davoxx wrote: »

well i was saying that it seemed that with the "we'd have to forget it" that their education would be finished and ruined if it were not a private school.

That's reading rather a lot into that phrase, tbh. Currently the plan is to send them to a private secondary school. If fees were doubled we could forget that plan. No hysteria, just a fact.

davoxx wrote: »

well there would be a financial gain, is what i am arguing, though the main point is that at worse case scenario there is no loss, but plenty of options to gain, ie more funding for public schools, and zero funding of teachers for private schools would save some amount of cash.

Where does the gain come from? Private school teacher funding simply moves to a public school (along with half the students) who now attend a school that needs State funds to build more classrooms and facilities.

davoxx wrote: »

just that perhaps all schools could be better if they charged students like colleges ... you know like how private schools charge parents.
or if all parents were charged, with grants given to the needy, then perhaps parents would not feel victimised that they are saving for a child's education, as everyone with children would. and the state would save money!!

Do you mean to means-test free education? "Screw you very much, middle class."

davoxx wrote: »

no, you should only do that to donate it to a private school where lesser off parents will not be able to attend because the only thing they can sacrifice is food.

Indeed. You realise the parents don't actually attend the school? They make the sacrifices for their children. Perhaps we should do away with maths grinds. Or ballet lessons. Or tennis. Or anything else some people save to pay for that other people can't.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I've read through the thread and no-where does anyone clearly explain how it is cheaper for the state to educate children in private schools. Because the department of ed. still have to pay the teachers' salaries!

Only the salaries are paid by the State. The maintenance and upkeep or develpoment of private schools is funded from their fees. So effectively, a private school-going student is cheaper for taxpayers.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Private schools have mainly discriminatory enrollment policies. Look at their provision for special needs children - non existant, despite being funded by the taxpayer. how many travellers go to private schools? they'd be well able to afford it too.

I have to laugh at the notion of private schools being discriminatory. Try getting an unbaptised child into an oversubscribed public school and see how you get on.

davoxx

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I've said much of this before in previous debates on this topic, so I'll keep it brief.

I'm a single parent on a very limited income currently. I send my child to a private school and do so because when I suddenly obtained custody some years back and tried 42 schools in my vicinity in Dublin, not one had a place available (though some magically found places for migrant children and refugee claimants subsequently.)

i think that may show some of your reasoning for private schools ... no migrant and refugee claimants magically getting places.

robd

It's good to see some parents coming on and outlining the clear problems they've had with public schools and the reasons for having to choose a private school.

As I stated way back on the thread private schools help to patch the clear structural problems with schooling in Ireland, particularly in Dublin where many parents just can't get their kids into a public school.

It's clear at this stage that it costs they state less to educate a kid in a private school than a public school.

It's clear that most private schools are not elitist. Yet most on this thread keep saying Clongowes Clongowes Clongowes which is not representative of 95% of private schools as it's a boarding school.

davoxx

astrofool wrote: »

So you're completely clueless either way, but insist you are correct?

how am i completely clueless? because you disagree with common sense regarding costing?

it's not my fault that i can't educate you regarding the fact that removing support for private schools does not imply that all private schools will close down.

could a private school teacher could teach you this, i don't know, but i don't think the state should have to fund it.

nesf

davoxx wrote: »

i think that may show some of your reasoning for private schools ... no migrant and refugee claimants magically getting places.

Any more of this kind of crap from you and it'll be a ban.

davoxx

Dades wrote: »

That's reading rather a lot into that phrase, tbh. Currently the plan is to send them to a private secondary school. If fees were doubled we could forget that plan. No hysteria, just a fact.

fair enough.

Dades wrote: »

Where does the gain come from? Private school teacher funding simply moves to a public school (along with half the students) who now attend a school that needs State funds to build more classrooms and facilities.

if only have the pupils more, 100% of the funding still moves. the difference will be capable of handling the influx. not all public schools are at capacity, so there are a good few students that can be absorbed without any major cost to the state.

Dades wrote: »

Do you mean to means-test free education? "Screw you very much, middle class."

unfortunately we have upper/middle/lower classes, i think that is wrong in health and education, but it will exists. i don't see a reason to have the public fund the segregation.

while i understand that charging any parent for education sounds awful, the truth is that some are able to pay and some are willing to pay to a private institution, but not to a public one. if people paid for their kids, then the schools would have more money, then theoretically there would be better education for those pupils.

Dades wrote: »

Indeed. You realise the parents don't actually attend the school?

i never realised, i thought that poor people did not go to school, so that was why rich people sent their kids to private schools, to aviod the rift raft.
so you are saying that the uneducated poor parents still don't go to school, that is shocking ... how did they get away from the fields?

obviously i meant "where lesser off parents' kids will not attend" ...

Dades wrote: »

They make the sacrifices for their children. Perhaps we should do away with maths grinds. Or ballet lessons. Or tennis. Or anything else some people save to pay for that other people can't.

not really as the state is not paying for those, so that is your business. hell if you want to buy your kid a set of nikes or a dictionary, that is your call as a parent, nothing to do with the state.

if you don't buy your child a brand new xbox but use that money for grinds or vice versa, does that make you a bad parent? to me it doesn't matter as all i'm saying is private schools should not be state funded.

Dades wrote: »

Only the salaries are paid by the State. The maintenance and upkeep or develpoment of private schools is funded from their fees. So effectively, a private school-going student is cheaper for taxpayers.

yeah fair enough, times have changed, beforehand the were getting government funds and grants, at least that was stamped out.
i don't see how a private school going student is cheap for taxpayers.
we still have the public schools running, so those costs are still there. we pay two teachers instead of one, (for say two pupils, one public, one private)
so regardless the cost to state is always more with private.

true i am arguing that regardless of cost, funding should be withdrawn and reinvested in public school, but even if it is all about the money it still makes sense not to fund private schools.

Dades wrote: »

I have to laugh at the notion of private schools being discriminatory.

you should not, discrimination is no laughing matter.

Dades wrote: »

Try getting an unbaptised child into an oversubscribed public school and see how you get on.

did they refuse you on grounds of the child being un-baptised?
try getting your child into a private school saying that he is a muslim and that his grandfather was black.

as a black friend of mine said, you should try walking down the street being black and then say you are discriminated against on the same level as a women is. both are discriminated against, just different amounts.

davoxx

robd wrote: »

It's good to see some parents coming on and outlining the clear problems they've had with public schools and the reasons for having to choose a private school.

fair point

robd wrote: »

As I stated way back on the thread private schools help to patch the clear structural problems with schooling in Ireland, particularly in Dublin where many parents just can't get their kids into a public school.

it seems from the replies here that most don't try sending them to public schools, hence the having to save to send them to private and if the fees are doubled, they'd be sent to public.

so i'm not sure where you are getting this from.

robd wrote: »

It's clear at this stage that it costs they state less to educate a kid in a private school than a public school.

only to those supporting it. i'd like to see some logic on this.

robd wrote: »

It's clear that most private schools are not elitist.

i'd say it's clear that most are, since you need to be able to pay for the place.

robd wrote: »

Yet most on this thread keep saying Clongowes Clongowes Clongowes which is not representative of 95% of private schools as it's a boarding school.

that is true.

Dades

davoxx, would I be right in saying you don't really care whether or not private schools take pressure off the public system - you are just against the idea that there is a private system that some parents can utilise?

We don't know the reality, but the suspicion is that ending teachers' pay in private schools will spell the end for a lot of schools themselves, and certainly remove the option for hard-working middle class taxpayers to fork out that extra for their children.

davoxx wrote:

we still have the public schools running, so those costs are still there. we pay two teachers instead of one, (for say two pupils, one public, one private)

This doesn't compute, unless you believe public schools are currently running at half-capacity.

It's just not as simple as "private schools shouldn't be funded by taxpayers". Private schools are subsidized by taxpayers, as the children that go to those schools are the children of taxpayers (and probably of those that pay the most tax).

The only thing I'll say about removing free education is that that's one way to start a revolution.

davoxx wrote: »

you should not, discrimination is no laughing matter.

did they refuse you on grounds of the child being un-baptised?
try getting your child into a private school saying that he is a muslim and that his grandfather was black.

as a black friend of mine said, you should try walking down the street being black and then say you are discriminated against on the same level as a women is. both are discriminated against, just different amounts.

Private schools these days only care about bank cheques, not background checks. If you are good for 6 or 12 years of fees I don't believe they'll give a damn.

davoxx wrote:

it seems from the replies here that most don't try sending them to public schools, hence the having to save to send them to private and if the fees are doubled, they'd be sent to public.

How do you mean "try"? Smart parents apply to all schools - local public and private. But ultimately you can only send them to one school, and that choice would be down to a multitude of factors.

Zulu

davoxx wrote: »

i think that may show some of your reasoning for private schools ... no migrant and refugee claimants magically getting places.

And your prejudice & snobbery come to the fore.

davoxx

Dades wrote: »

davoxx, would I be right in saying you don't really care whether or not private schools take pressure off the public system - you are just against the idea that there is a private system that some parents can utilise?

no, i do care if it cost the taxpayer more money, my belief is that state funding private schools costs the state more than not funding private schools.
i can't see how logically the opposite could be true, unless one assumes a near 75% switch to public schools, in which case private schools would react and lower their fees (i'd imagine).

i also am against the use of public funds on private matters.

had it been shown that private schools save the taxpayer money, i'd still be against them, but i'd acknowledge that they saved the tax payer money and until a time that the state can afford to cut funding, they should be funded.

Dades wrote: »

We don't know the reality, but the suspicion is that ending teachers' pay in private schools will spell the end for a lot of schools themselves, and certainly remove the option for hard-working middle class taxpayers to fork out that extra for their children.

i agree that removing funding will raise fees and will push more parents to send their kids to public schools.
the money that was due for private fess could be used elsewhere for the child's benefit, but i don't believe this should be used as a point for sticking to the current system.
i believe that the state will save money doing this, and some of this money (ideally all of it) would be reinvested into the worst of schools.

Dades wrote: »

This doesn't compute, unless you believe public schools are currently running at half-capacity.

i believe that most are not running at 100% and can easily absorb 100 pupils.

Dades wrote: »

It's just not as simple as "private schools shouldn't be funded by taxpayers". Private schools are subsidized by taxpayers, as the children that go to those schools are the children of taxpayers (and probably of those that pay the most tax).

i know private schools are not fully funded by the state. the fact that the parents pay tax is irrelevant, i pay tax and i have no kids, therefore i should pay less tax? and assuming that private school kids pay more tax is irrelevant as well, as in this society the well off take care of the less well off. one should not expect special favours for this.

Dades wrote: »

The only thing I'll say about removing free education is that that's one way to start a revolution.

true, but the 3rd level students accepted it, there is a possibility that all non-parents would accept it, i mean "i don't have kids, why should i pay for other peoples kids" seems to be a common belief.

Dades wrote: »

Private schools these days only care about bank cheques, not background checks. If you are good for 6 or 12 years of fees I don't believe they'll give a damn.

even worse, imagine a talented individual who really could do with extra education, are there many scholarships floating around?
and i'm sure that some private schools, just like some public schools, do very much care on the background over the money.

Dades wrote: »

How do you mean "try"? Smart parents apply to all schools - local public and private. But ultimately you can only send them to one school, and that choice would be down to a multitude of factors.

some don't to be fair. some leave it till too late and then whine there were no places.
from posts here it seems, to me, that the majority of people choose the private school as their first option, and if they can't afford it, then a public would be the second option. this is in stark contrast to saying that they tried all schools and could only get a place in a private school.

my point is that if you think private schools is better than public, ie that one has had the choice and picked private, then their point that they will no longer be able to afford it, is null as void. since the new budget, loads of people had to make sacrifices, i'm not talking about 3 instead of 4 overseas holidays.
everyone is feeling the pinch.

davoxx

Zulu wrote: »

And your prejudice & snobbery come to the fore.

sorry, how is my prejudice & snobbery coming to the fore here?

seriously i'd like you to show this.

Dades

davoxx wrote: »

i agree that removing funding will raise fees and will push more parents to send their kids to public schools.
the money that was due for private fess could be used elsewhere for the child's benefit, but i don't believe this should be used as a point for sticking to the current system.
i believe that the state will save money doing this, and some of this money (ideally all of it) would be reinvested into the worst of schools.

We're also both making the assumption that if the funding used for private school teachers' pay was removed - that it wouldn't disappear into a giant bank-sized hole and never see the inside of a pre-fab. :pac:

davoxx wrote: »

i know private schools are not fully funded by the state. the fact that the parents pay tax is irrelevant, i pay tax and i have no kids, therefore i should pay less tax? and assuming that private school kids pay more tax is irrelevant as well, as in this society the well off take care of the less well off. one should not expect special favours for this.

I take your point that you don't have kids, but I'm pretty sure the thinking is we're all screwed if we don't educate the next generation of children. Somebody has to pay the taxes to pay the pensions etc. etc. And if we make education a real "cost" - standards will decline.

Also, how is it a "special favour" to get the same benefit (less in fact since it's only teachers' pay) as other taxpayers?

davoxx wrote: »

some don't to be fair. some leave it till too late and then whine there were no places.
from posts here it seems, to me, that the majority of people choose the private school as their first option, and if they can't afford it, then a public would be the second option. this is in stark contrast to saying that they tried all schools and could only get a place in a private school.

my point is that if you think private schools is better than public, ie that one has had the choice and picked private, then their point that they will no longer be able to afford it, is null as void. since the new budget, loads of people had to make sacrifices, i'm not talking about 3 instead of 4 overseas holidays.
everyone is feeling the pinch.

I've no idea what your point is here.

davoxx

Dades wrote: »

We're also both making the assumption that if the funding used for private school teachers' pay was removed - that it wouldn't disappear into a giant bank-sized hole and never see the inside of a pre-fab.

it's nice to think so. but unless we try nothing will change. the bank sized hole is irrelevant as all income are being tapped for this hole.

Dades wrote: »

I take your point that you don't have kids, but I'm pretty sure the thinking is we're all screwed if we don't educate the next generation of children. Somebody has to pay the taxes to pay the pensions etc. etc. And if we make education a real "cost" - standards will decline.

well my point is that some (not me) think "feck the next generation, who cares, i don't have kids, let their parents pay for their education completely" and to me this is similar to the thinking that "well the better off parents, who send their kids to private school, pay more tax, so it's only fair that the state subsidise their fees". i think both are wrong.

Dades wrote: »

Also, how is it a "special favour" to get the same benefit (less in fact since it's only teachers' pay) as other taxpayers?

because you are using state funding on private education and justifying it because "they pay more tax". that is a special favour to those that pay more tax and have kids who choose private schools.

Dades wrote: »

I've no idea what your point is here.

some people in private education truly had no choice, but the most have a choice and choose the private school first, with the second school second.
if you have no choice, your concern is valid. if you choose a private school over a public school, you have no valid concern as you can still send the kid to school.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Anita Blow

davoxx wrote: »

because you are using state funding on private education and justifying it because "they pay more tax". that is a special favour to those that pay more tax and have kids who choose private schools.

It is not being justified because "they pay more tax". It's being justified because they are a taxpayer. As a taxpayer, they are entitled to avail of government services. It's reverse discrimination to state that a person must be poorer to get support from the state which they help fund.
Perhaps you should read our constitution. I'll quote the relevant bits for you.

1.
The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
2.
Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
3.
1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative

Chucky the tree

Lockstep wrote: »

Yeah, I don't see the problem with kids being educated in prefabs. I was in one for 2 years and there were no problems.

They won't be renting them out free of charge. It will cost extra money to rent them so we can already see how scraping salaries for private school teachers will end up costing the state mre. That's before we even consider how some schools might not hae room for pre-fabs.

davoxx

Anita Blow wrote: »

It is not being justified because "they pay more tax". It's being justified because they are a taxpayer. As a taxpayer, they are entitled to avail of government services. It's reverse discrimination to state that a person must be poorer to get support from the state which they help fund.
Perhaps you should read our constitution. I'll quote the relevant bits for you.

so then they can avail of government services, the public school.
i think you are confusing withdrawing funding from private schools for forcing the closure of private schools and forcing the parents to only use public schools.

i'm not sure what you think that quote proves, other than the state must provide free education (primary from this selective quote)

The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative

i'm not sure that this means it must fund private schools, in fact i'm pretty sure this means that they have to fund public schools like the CBS, which are run privately.

i'm sure if the constitution protects funding to private schools that that would have been the first defence in preventing it from being withdrawn, not that the constitution can't be changed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dades

davoxx , the rest of your post to me has already been addressed several times above.

davoxx wrote: »

some people in private education truly had no choice, but the most have a choice and choose the private school first, with the second school second.
if you have no choice, your concern is valid. if you choose a private school over a public school, you have no valid concern as you can still send the kid to school.

My only concern is that people would remove options within the education system for no other reason than righteous indignation.

fly_agaric

Dades wrote: »

This...

Well don't doubt it. We're already saving hard to send our kids (1 & 3) to a private secondary school. If the fees doubled, we'd have to forget it and they'd be sent to whatever public school we could get them into. And we are not alone in this situation.

I'm afraid your sample of 1 does not affect my doubt.

The fees are already rising. However, numbers enrolling in such private schools are either static overall or even rising for certain schools despite the economic disaster visited on this country in the past few years.

Dades wrote:

My only concern is that people would remove options within the education system for no other reason than righteous indignation.

I dunno, righteous indignation is a good reason to do something imo. Giving some people lots of "options" should never be the main rationale for education spending by the state.

Cavehill Red

davoxx wrote: »

i think that may show some of your reasoning for private schools ... no migrant and refugee claimants magically getting places.

I think you're (deliberately?) misunderstanding what I wrote. My child was refused a place by 42 Dublin schools, who claimed to be full and have room only for children of alumni or no room at all, only for some of them to later provide places to non-nationals. A teacher in one school in D15 explained to me that they feared accusations of racism if they did not provide the places, even though it was causing significant overcrowding. Migrants demanding places for their children often did so with the advice of certain state-funded lobby groups which I did not have the assistance of.
In my child's school there are likely more nationalities than in the vast majority of schools in the country. So you can shove your tacit accusations of racism. I'm not playing.
My reasoning for private schools is that they save the state money. Money that I pay so the taxpayer does not have to. Now, I can only repeat - I'd be happy not to pay (had to write the cheque this morning in fact.) Are you happy to pay instead for the pleasure of closing such schools down? It'll cost you in the region of at least 100 million annually.

nice_guy80

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

why have these private schools got such highly qualified teachers?? which get better results?
because they can pay them more!! They can offer extra pay from the fees that they charge!!

also, you'd be worried if the private schools didn't do better than public schools!!
they have restrictive enrollment policies. (ruling out weaker children from poorer socio economic families, special needs, travellers, immigrants - unless they can pay)
have stricter entrance exams.
have better faclities - tutors, supervised study, dedicated libraries
And all the studies have shown that higher parental earnings equate to better learning outcomes and results for children.

and don't quote college entrance tables for their successes.
most private schools are located close to third level institutions - Dublin area, Cork, Limerick, therefore of course they will have higher progression rates. most of the private schools don't offer many practical subjects so would not produce too many tradesmen.

nice_guy80

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I think you're (deliberately?) misunderstanding what I wrote. My child was refused a place by 42 Dublin schools, who claimed to be full and have room only for children of alumni or no room at all, only for some of them to later provide places to non-nationals. A teacher in one school in D15 explained to me that they feared accusations of racism if they did not provide the places, even though it was causing significant overcrowding. Migrants demanding places for their children often did so with the advice of certain state-funded lobby groups which I did not have the assistance of.
In my child's school there are likely more nationalities than in the vast majority of schools in the country. So you can shove your tacit accusations of racism. I'm not playing.
My reasoning for private schools is that they save the state money. Money that I pay so the taxpayer does not have to. Now, I can only repeat - I'd be happy not to pay (had to write the cheque this morning in fact.) Are you happy to pay instead for the pleasure of closing such schools down? It'll cost you in the region of at least 100 million annually.

why will it cost 100 million??

Cavehill Red

nice_guy80 wrote: »

why will it cost 100 million??

It'll probably cost much more than that actually. But 100 million is the amount already quoted in this thread from an IT article.
It will cost so much because currently parents pay for everything other than teachers' wages in such schools. Move those kids to public schools and the state pays for everything.

Godge

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is a certain logic to what you are saying but it misses the full picture as it makes a certain basic assumption namely that if the state stopped subsidising private schools, all pupils would transfer to the state system. If this did not happen - say, a lot of parents decided to pay the increased fees that would result - your argument does not hold up.

Let me illustrate (these figures are not taken from anywhere but they illustrate the point).

Private School A has 200 pupils. Cost per pupil in a private school is €5,000. Therefore the cost to the state of subsidising the private school is €1m.

Public School B also has 200 pupil. Cost per pupil in the public school is €7,000. Therefore the cost of public school B is €1.4m.

The total cost to the state is €2.4m.

Government decides to stop subsidising private schools. As a result fees shoot up and half the pupils in private schools can no longer afford the fees and switch to the public school system. The result is:

Private School A has 100 pupils. The cost to the state is zero.

Public School B has 300 pupils. Cost per pupil in the public school is €7,000. Therefore the cost of public school B is €2.1m.

Saving to the state as a result of the policy change €0.3m.

You see, the cost being lower in the private schools is not the determinant of whether the system saves money or not. It is the displacement rate - the number of pupils who would switch to public schools in the absence of a subsidy - which determines whether the policy change would save money or not.

I am not aware of any study that has looked at how those displacement rates would work but it has the possibility of either outcome - a saving or a cost to the state.

Chucky the tree

Godge wrote: »

There is a certain logic to what you are saying but it misses the full picture as it makes a certain basic assumption namely that if the state stopped subsidising private schools, all pupils would transfer to the state system. If this did not happen - say, a lot of parents decided to pay the increased fees that would result - your argument does not hold up.

Let me illustrate (these figures are not taken from anywhere but they illustrate the point).

Private School A has 200 pupils. Cost per pupil in a private school is €5,000. Therefore the cost to the state of subsidising the private school is €1m.

Public School B also has 200 pupil. Cost per pupil in the public school is €7,000. Therefore the cost of public school B is €1.4m.

The total cost to the state is €2.4m.

Government decides to stop subsidising private schools. As a result fees shoot up and half the pupils in private schools can no longer afford the fees and switch to the public school system. The result is:

Private School A has 100 pupils. The cost to the state is zero.

Public School B has 300 pupils. Cost per pupil in the public school is €7,000. Therefore the cost of public school B is €2.1m.

Saving to the state as a result of the policy change €0.3m.

You see, the cost being lower in the private schools is not the determinant of whether the system saves money or not. It is the displacement rate - the number of pupils who would switch to public schools in the absence of a subsidy - which determines whether the policy change would save money or not.

I am not aware of any study that has looked at how those displacement rates would work but it has the possibility of either outcome - a saving or a cost to the state.

The big problem with this hypothetical example is that it doesn't factor how the Public school can handle an increase of an extra 100 students. Does this mean increase in class room size, or does this mean having to build or rent prefabs and a cost to the state?

nice_guy80

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It'll probably cost much more than that actually. But 100 million is the amount already quoted in this thread from an IT article.
It will cost so much because currently parents pay for everything other than teachers' wages in such schools. Move those kids to public schools and the state pays for everything.

the state is already paying for those schools to be open and function

your logic that they will then have to pay for more because lots of pupils will end up going there is spurious

Anita Blow

davoxx wrote: »

i'm not sure what you think that quote proves, other than the state must provide free education (primary from this selective quote)


i'm not sure that this means it must fund private schools, in fact i'm pretty sure this means that they have to fund public schools like the CBS, which are run privately.

Many of the points in the Article are linked with each other. The government is bound to pay the same amount for each student in the state to ensure they get the minimum level of education.
In public schools, they also pay for the upkeep of the school etc.
In private schools, the government only has to pay the capitation per student and this forms the "supplement" or "reasonable aid" that the government is bound to pay by the constitution.

If the state withdraws the capitation for private students, this will no doubt cause a sizable percentage of parents to pull their kids out of that private school because they can no longer afford it. If they are unable to find another public school in the area (whether it's due to the school being full or other reasons) then the government will be liable as they have failed to provide a minimum education for that child, which they must according to our constitution.

The article doesn't discriminate between types of schools so it certainly applies to private schools aswell as CBS.

davoxx wrote: »

so then they can avail of government services, the public school.
i think you are confusing withdrawing funding from private schools for forcing the closure of private schools and forcing the parents to only use public schools.

The fact is that many private schools will close if they don't get that capitation. If they charge less then they will not be able to maintain the benefits they offer so less people will be inclined to use them and then the end result is the same, they will not be viable. Our public system would not be able to take an influx of students. You seem to think that there's excess capacity in schools that can accomodate further students and that is not the case. Our birth rate is incredibly high and is already putting huge pressure on the system (As evidenced by the shock from government at the census results showing we don't have enough schools to cater in the future, as well as the capital budget increase for schools just to be able to accomodate the next generation).

Just because there may be schools with excess capacity in one part of the country, that means nothing to a family in North Dublin (lets say) who has had to pull their son out of belvedere because they can't afford it anymore.

Godge

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The big problem with this hypothetical example is that it doesn't factor how the Public school can handle an increase of an extra 100 students. Does this mean increase in class room size, or does this mean having to build or rent prefabs and a cost to the state?

That may be a factor given that I suggested half (100) would transfer to a public school. But nobody knows the displacement rate. What if the number from that hypothetical example who would move to a public school is as low as 10% (20). The saving to the state would be much, much higher at €0.86m and the public schools in the area should be well able to cope with only 20 extra pupils.

The point I am making is that the relative cost is not the determining factor. If Ruairi Quinn decides to call the bluff of the parents sending their kids to private schools, it might well be worth doing.

Cavehill Red

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the state is already paying for those schools to be open and function

No, it's paying for teachers' wages. The rest is covered by parents.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

your logic that they will then have to pay for more because lots of pupils will end up going there is spurious

How so? Currently I pay for my child's education all the costs apart from teacher salaries. If my child goes to a public school, I stop paying money. Win for me. But my child still needs the school to be heated, maintained, classroom supplies, electricity, all the other overheads other than teacher salaries to be paid in order to be educated.
So, if I'm not paying that money, the state will be.
Now, if you have some magic accounting that shows how I can stop paying and no one has to pick up the cost I no longer pay in this scenario, then the Dept of Finance would be delighted to hear from you, because magicking money out of thin air is exactly the sort of skillset they desperately desire right now.

Godge

Anita Blow wrote: »

Many of the points in the Article are linked with each other. The government is bound to pay the same amount for each student in the state to ensure they get the minimum level of education.
In public schools, they also pay for the upkeep of the school etc.
In private schools, the government only has to pay the capitation per student and this forms the "supplement" or "reasonable aid" that the government is bound to pay by the constitution.

If the state withdraws the capitation for private students, this will no doubt cause a sizable percentage of parents to pull their kids out of that private school because they can no longer afford it. If they are unable to find another public school in the area (whether it's due to the school being full or other reasons) then the government will be liable as they have failed to provide a minimum education for that child, which they must according to our constitution.

The article doesn't discriminate between types of schools so it certainly applies to private schools aswell as CBS.

The fact is that many private schools will close if they don't get that capitation. If they charge less then they will not be able to maintain the benefits they offer so less people will be inclined to use them and then the end result is the same, they will not be viable. Our public system would not be able to take an influx of students. You seem to think that there's excess capacity in schools that can accomodate further students and that is not the case. Our birth rate is incredibly high and is already putting huge pressure on the system (As evidenced by the shock from government at the census results showing we don't have enough schools to cater in the future, as well as the capital budget increase for schools just to be able to accomodate the next generation).

Just because there may be schools with excess capacity in one part of the country, that means nothing to a family in North Dublin (lets say) who has had to pull their son out of belvedere because they can't afford it anymore.

(1) You have no idea whether any parent would stop sending their kids to private schools. Nobody does. The private schools, in their own interest, are scaremongering on that issue, who wouldn't want to keep a source of income.

(2) All the Constitution says is that the State should endeavour to supplement private education. The CPSU (or was it the INMO) thought the Constitution protected contractual rights (and it does more to protect contractual rights than a mere endeavour) but when they went to court on the issue, they lost and the State cut their pay. I have no doubt that if the Government withdrew private school subsidy and somebody went to court, the courts would say that the Government has endeavoured to the best of its ability but is now out of money so was entitled to priorities between obligations and endeavours.

(3) As for the pressure on schools, I am wondering about the 5,600 young children who have been getting child benefit and are now excluded because it appears they are no longer in the country that the Department of Education projections may be too optimistic in terms of numbers.

Cavehill Red

Godge wrote: »

That may be a factor given that I suggested half (100) would transfer to a public school. But nobody knows the displacement rate. What if the number from that hypothetical example who would move to a public school is as low as 10% (20). The saving to the state would be much, much higher at €0.86m and the public schools in the area should be well able to cope with only 20 extra pupils.

The point I am making is that the relative cost is not the determining factor. If Ruairi Quinn decides to call the bluff of the parents sending their kids to private schools, it might well be worth doing.

Kids are already leaving private schools due to the economic downturn. Parents can't afford the fees due to job losses, higher taxes, reduced income and so on. More and more will do so even if Quinn does nothing at all about private schools.
Estimates of 10% loss of pupils if the funding of teacher salaries were removed is a nonsense. Most of these schools would close their doors overnight as they would be entirely unviable.

Cavehill Red

Godge wrote: »

All the Constitution says is that the State should endeavour to supplement private education.

The consitution also underwrites the right of children to be educated in their own religious ethos. How much will it cost to provide a state Presbyterian school, a state Methodist school, a state Lutheran school, a state Jewish school, a state Muslim school and so on?
How much will it cost to build and fit them out?

Godge

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, it's paying for teachers' wages. The rest is covered by parents.



How so? Currently I pay for my child's education all the costs apart from teacher salaries. If my child goes to a public school, I stop paying money. Win for me. But my child still needs the school to be heated, maintained, classroom supplies, electricity, all the other overheads other than teacher salaries to be paid in order to be educated.
So, if I'm not paying that money, the state will be.
Now, if you have some magic accounting that shows how I can stop paying and no one has to pick up the cost I no longer pay in this scenario, then the Dept of Finance would be delighted to hear from you, because magicking money out of thin air is exactly the sort of skillset they desperately desire right now.

I have already explained that. It is only a problem for the Department of Finance if everyone moves across to a public school. If you are the only one to move their child across (and to be fair, you can only talk about yourself), then not only is it a win for you but also a win for the Department of Finance. As it is only one pupil, they probably wouldn't have to increase the number of teachers, and the extra heat, light etc. would be minimal. So win for you and win for the Department of Finance. Even if permabear and anita blow also move their children, it is still a win for the Department of Finance.