17,000 euros pa to send a Child to Clongowes

robd

davoxx wrote: »

damn right people are missing the point, the government provides a bus service for everyone no matter class/race or religion etc ...
the purpose of a limo is to get there in style and comfort, if the people want to catch a limo, the government should subsidised it, then the people within it can look down on the bus people and not have to work very very hard to pay for it, unlike the lazy bus people who work very unhard.

wait a sec they don't do that, why should they do it for education?
if you don't want to avail of free education, go pay for it yourself, all by yourself ... since they work very hard, the reward will be sweeter ...

Actually it's more like 1st class on a train carriage which they do subsidise. You're trying to compare apples with oranges.

melekalikimaka

i think people here genuinely think everyone who sends their children to private schooling are rolling in cash. Mine weren't and made serious sacrifices for my education, as they believed it would lead me down a better road in life than continuing in a troubled public school I was previously in. If funding was cut, the prices would shoot over the limit of people being able to make this choice... which saddens me as I was not a minority in school with that story... and I feel it was a very important turn in my life... why would you begrudge that? You feel because parent wish to subsidise their childrens education which they already paid for in tax, with money from their own pocket, they should be striped of the benifits their tax paid for... It strikes me as child on your shoulder mentality all over to me...

davoxx

robd wrote: »

Actually it's more like 1st class on a train carriage which they do subsidise. You're trying to compare apples with oranges.

well yes and no.
i'm suggesting that they should subsidise limos in an attempt to show why it is incorrect to subsidise private schools.

if it was to me there would be no 1st class train carriages, they'd all be equally nice. but trains allow anyone to upgrade, private schools will not admit anyone.

robd

davoxx wrote: »

well yes and no.
i'm suggesting that they should subsidise limos in an attempt to show why it is incorrect to subsidise private schools.

if it was to me there would be no 1st class train carriages, they'd all be equally nice. but trains allow anyone to upgrade, private schools will not admit anyone.

Trains work on a first come first served basis. Private schools use a list of criteria for how they select. Some of them will admit anyone, as they exhaust their more restrictive criteria before filling places. Most use a lottery for remaining places.

There's nothing to stop government legislating to forbid use of parent or relation rule in admission criteria. Most schools do not fill on this criteria. They used to use interview and results as criteria but that was previously legislated against hence lottery or FCFS rule.

Chucky the tree

fly_agaric wrote: »

Does it? Our education system is mediocre for a supposed first world country.
Wasting money (that we are partially dependant on our Troika Benefactors for at the moment) subsidising private schools is quite stupid.


We'd be ending what is effectively a state subsidy for a private sector business. The money saved can go to try and make the "state" education system better. Maybe spend it on hiring more teachers, new buildings for some of our rathole primary schools etc.

Let people pay entire cost of it if they want a separate education.

If they can't afford that their children can go to the schools that their taxes help pay for.

What money saved? If anything we'd need to spend extra money to build new schools or upgrade current ones to handle the influx of students who couldn't afford fully private schools.

davoxx

robd wrote: »

Trains work on a first come first served basis. Private schools use a list of criteria for how they select. Some of them will admit anyone, as they exhaust their more restrictive criteria before filling places. Most use a lottery for remaining places.

There's nothing to stop government legislating to forbid use of parent or relation rule in admission criteria. Most schools do not fill on this criteria. They used to use interview and results as criteria but that was previously legislated against hence lottery or FCFS rule.

okay, but in regards to my limo suggestion, you can see why they should pay their own way and be left to their own devices ...

davoxx

Chucky the tree wrote: »

What money saved? If anything we'd need to spend extra money to build new schools or upgrade current ones to handle the influx of students who couldn't afford fully private schools.

coz everyone who goes there are borderline capable of paying for it?

Chucky the tree

davoxx wrote: »

coz everyone who goes there are borderline capable of paying for it?

So everyone who goes to clongowes could afford to pay €34k? Or if they have two kids going could then afford €68K? I certainly don't believe everyone who has a child or children in private school could afford it if fees were doubled.

davoxx

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So everyone who goes to clongowes could afford to pay €34k? Or if they have two kids going could then afford €68K? I certainly don't believe everyone who has a child or children in private school could afford it if fees were doubled.

i doubt the fees would be doubled, and i doubt that the majority of them can't or won't be able to pay the increase in fees.

Chucky the tree

davoxx wrote: »

i doubt the fees would be doubled, and i doubt that the majority of them can't or won't be able to pay the increase in fees.

Why do you doubt fees would double? In 2009 as pointed early half of private schools income came from fees, while the other half came from the state. Well there is just over 26k people in private schools, from my experience I'd be very surprised if most of them could afford fees to be doubled for each child.

davoxx

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Why do you doubt fees would double? In 2009 as pointed early half of private schools income came from fees, while the other half came from the state. Well there is just over 26k people in private schools, from my experience I'd be very surprised if most of them could afford fees to be doubled for each child.

supply and demand. just because they get half the income from the state, does not mean that the staff still need their double income, the teacher will have to take a pay cut as the state is no longer funding half of their salary ... so to assume it will be a simple case of doubling the fees would be wrong.

and if they can't afford private education, well at least they can go back to public education, which would then use some of the money saved to accommodate them.

i'd say a 50% gain would be a reasonable guesstimation, but then again it is a recession, everyone has to pay more for the things they want right?

Chucky the tree

davoxx wrote: »

supply and demand. just because they get half the income from the state, does not mean that the staff still need their double income, the teacher will have to take a pay cut as the state is no longer funding half of their salary ... so to assume it will be a simple case of doubling the fees would be wrong.

and if they can't afford private education, well at least they can go back to public education, which would then use some of the money saved to accommodate them.

i'd say a 50% gain would be a reasonable guesstimation, but then again it is a recession, everyone has to pay more for the things they want right?

What? The state funds the full salary of the teachers, there will be no pay-cut for the teachers because the Unions and CPA would not allow that in a million years. If private schools become fully private then they would have to hire their own teachers from their own money. Now they can hire teachers on a lower cost and hope the standard is the same but even in that situation I'd be surprised if Unions allowed a situation where private schools could hire non-union teachers en-masse.


What money would be saved? €100m it cost the state to educate over 26 thousand pupils, do you think €100m would be able to build enough schools, hire enough teachers, upgrade enough classrooms to cover that? It seems you think people who go to private schools have some endless amount of money which isn't the case. It's a risk the Government can't take, they can't stop funding to a private schools and just pray everyone can afford it and make no plans for some not being able to afford it and then having a couple of thousand applicants for public schools in a year when there is no back up plan to take them.

n900guy

davoxx wrote: »

damn right people are missing the point, the government provides a bus service for everyone no matter class/race or religion etc ...
the purpose of a limo is to get there in style and comfort, if the people want to catch a limo, the government should subsidised it, then the people within it can look down on the bus people and not have to work very very hard to pay for it, unlike the lazy bus people who work very unhard.

wait a sec they don't do that, why should they do it for education?
if you don't want to avail of free education, go pay for it yourself, all by yourself ... since they work very hard, the reward will be sweeter ...

Except with the education system and health system, the person in the limo is paying the bus fares of several people including themselves already, they simply don't squash on and use the the bus that they are paying to access.

Stop using analogies because it's completely ridiculous. If you look at what is happening, it is that people are paying for education by the state, and then supplementing their taxation payments with extra payments to go to a particular school. Your issue is more that other's have more money/access to things you do not - but those parents payign for private schools are very much also paying for their entitlement to state schools and teachers as well.

WHat you really want is that those who can afford private school payments to forgoe their entitlement to state supported education - even though they are paying taxes for it. You want to have their share of teachers and schools, and leave them suck it up or squash into the class with you. Typical tribal begrudgery.

davoxx

n900guy wrote: »

Except with the education system and health system, the person in the limo is paying the bus fares of several people including themselves already, they simply don't squash on and use the the bus that they are paying to access.

so? i'm saying that the people in the bus, the communal solution, should not pay for people to have their own private solution.

n900guy wrote: »

Stop using analogies because it's completely ridiculous.

it's not, that is the point on analogies.

n900guy wrote: »

If you look at what is happening, it is that people are paying for education by the state, and then supplementing their taxation payments with extra payments to go to a particular school.

ok that is what is happening.
what should happen is that if you want to go private, then fund it yourself.
or everyone should get a cash value for education and they can use it how they please.

none of this half arsed nonsense of having private institutions publicly funded.

n900guy wrote: »

Your issue is more that other's have more money/access to things you do not - but those parents payign for private schools are very much also paying for their entitlement to state schools and teachers as well.

no my issue is that private means go bugger off and pay for it yourself, then i as a public member have no right to complain.

before you get all high and mighty, you are presuming that parents are all paying taxes or tax resident, and you are forgetting that childless people are also paying taxes.

so who cares if they are paying taxes? those taxes entitle them to free education, that's all it should. it should not be use on private institutions.

you know use state funds for the public, not private? it seems obvious ...

n900guy wrote: »

WHat you really want is that those who can afford private school payments to forgoe their entitlement to state supported education - even though they are paying taxes for it. You want to have their share of teachers and schools, and leave them suck it up or squash into the class with you. Typical tribal begrudgery.

what you really want is the public to pay for those who can afford private schooling and to pay for their taxes for them as well ... typical elitist rubbish.

davoxx

Chucky the tree wrote: »

What? The state funds the full salary of the teachers, there will be no pay-cut for the teachers because the Unions and CPA would not allow that in a million years.

well then they will be out of a job, too bad. i know loads of people who did not want to take a pay cut ...

Chucky the tree wrote: »

If private schools become fully private then they would have to hire their own teachers from their own money.

that's the idea.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Now they can hire teachers on a lower cost and hope the standard is the same but even in that situation

well yes, like how public schools do it, your getting it now.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'd be surprised if Unions allowed a situation where private schools could hire non-union teachers en-masse.

well too bad, if they want to strike, why should the public care? it's a private section issue, let them sort it out?

Chucky the tree wrote: »

What money would be saved? €100m it cost the state to educate over 26 thousand pupils, do you think €100m would be able to build enough schools, hire enough teachers, upgrade enough classrooms to cover that?

well yes. obviously it is, seeing as how a similar proportion is used on public schools.
besides i doubt all 26k students would end up slumming it.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It seems you think people who go to private schools have some endless amount of money which isn't the case.

i don't think that, i just don't care if they do or do not. the reality of the situation is that they have a lot more than the public school kids ...
maybe money is not everything, but if you want private education, pay for it, privately of course.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It's a risk the Government can't take,

can't or won't? or is there even a risk? say it correctly, they don't want to mess up the status quo, but they will introduce property and water tax.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

they can't stop funding to a private schools and just pray everyone can afford it and make no plans for some not being able to afford it and then having a couple of thousand applicants for public schools in a year when there is no back up plan to take them.

i think you'll find they can, just like, property and water tax, introduce it and hope for the best. it is just that their kids go to these schools, and they don't want to hurt their own pockets.

robd

I suspect what will happen with this, is that Labour will decide that it's too risky to just stop paying private school teachers as would cause massive upheaval.

In terms of doubling of fees as I've said before, Clongowes is a boarding school and most of the fees are for boarding not education. 5,000 is more normal for day private schools which could easily hit 8,000 to 10,000 overnight. This would be unaffordable for a huge amount of parents.

The compromise will likely be a private school levy. Irish governments love levies. At say €1000 per child, that would bring in 26,000 x 1000 or 26 million. Will satisfy Labour's socialist conscience and not kill the system completely. Teachers will still be public servants with nice pensions.

They'll talk about raising the levy over time till it's 4000, thus covering the 100 million cost but it will never happen cause Labour will be gone from government in the not too distant future.

robd

davoxx wrote: »

well then they will be out of a job, too bad. i know loads of people who did not want to take a pay cut ...

I think you're missing that they are employed by the Department of Education not the Schools directly. So they'll still have jobs just not classes to teach or school to go to. That's have the public sector works.

Private schools only directly pay/hire the surplus of teachers, which is generally longest serving teachers.

davoxx

robd wrote: »

I think you're missing that they are employed by the Department of Education not the Schools directly. So they'll still have jobs just not classes to teach or school to go to. That's have the public sector works.

Private schools only directly pay/hire the surplus of teachers, which is generally longest serving teachers.

then we should send them off to the poorer areas of ireland and let them teach there .. or give them brushes and hand them out clean the streets if they don't have schools to teach in ...

the point is, if they want to strike about losing the extra income the schools were paying them when they get let go or relocated, that's too bad.

but yes public sector workers can sometimes take the piss indeed.

Chucky the tree

davoxx wrote: »

well then they will be out of a job, too bad. i know loads of people who did not want to take a pay cut ...

This is the Irish public sector, you don't lose your job here.

davoxx wrote: »

that's the idea.

well yes, like how public schools do it, your getting it now.

Public schools don't pay teachers less then private schools.

davoxx wrote: »

well too bad, if they want to strike, why should the public care? it's a private section issue, let them sort it out?

It's not a private sector issue, it's a public sector issue.

davoxx wrote: »

well yes. obviously it is, seeing as how a similar proportion is used on public schools.
besides i doubt all 26k students would end up slumming it.

It cost €8m to build a new public school in Dublin city centre for 93 pupils, I doubt €100m will cover the cost of 26 thousand.

davoxx wrote: »

i don't think that, i just don't care if they do or do not. the reality of the situation is that they have a lot more than the public school kids ...
maybe money is not everything, but if you want private education, pay for it, privately of course.

I've no problem with that, however I'd rather not pay extra taxes so everyone can go to a public school. You might be happy to pay more taxes but I am not.

davoxx wrote: »

can't or won't? or is there even a risk? say it correctly, they don't want to mess up the status quo, but they will introduce property and water tax.

i think you'll find they can, just like, property and water tax, introduce it and hope for the best. it is just that their kids go to these schools, and they don't want to hurt their own pockets.

Of course there is even a risk, I thought that would be obvious to nearly everyone. Comparing the house tax to scraping funding for private schools? It seems you don't have much of a clue what you're talking aobut to be honest. I just hope the Government have a much better idea than "lets just hope for the best" when it comes to the education of 26 thousand school kids.

davoxx

Chucky the tree wrote: »

This is the Irish public sector, you don't lose your job here.

ok, then reassign them.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Public schools don't pay teachers less then private schools.

ok but private schools pay their teachers more than public schools.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It's not a private sector issue, it's a public sector issue.

when they are made private sector, you know by cutting the funding, then it will be a private sector issue.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It cost €8m to build a new public school in Dublin city centre for 93 pupils, I doubt €100m will cover the cost of 26 thousand.

i doubt you'll need to build a new schools just to accommodate all of them.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I've no problem with that, however I'd rather not pay extra taxes so everyone can go to a public school. You might be happy to pay more taxes but I am not.

huh? how are you paying extra taxes? you pay taxes currently so everyone can go to school, like you have.
you might be happy taking free education and not paying for others to avail of it ...

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Of course there is even a risk, I thought that would be obvious to nearly everyone.

just as obvious that the state should not fund private institutions to the benefit of wealthy.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Comparing the house tax to scraping funding for private schools?

well yes, both are there to help the deficit ...

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It seems you don't have much of a clue what you're talking about to be honest.

don't be honest, be right. and since it seems you are wrong, just don't say anything.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I just hope the Government have a much better idea than "lets just hope for the best" when it comes to the education of 26 thousand school kids.

i dunno, i thought the idea of them using public schools, and then better funding it so the everyone has access to the same quality of education is a very good idea ...

Icepick

-not every private school student has millionaire parents
-if the subsidies are scrapped, a lot of parents couldn't afford the full fees
-kids would end up in public schools costing the state (much) more
-this would also frustrate their parents, who contribute a lot
-there would also probably be job losses because private schools would need to recoup the money elsewhere

Chucky the tree

davoxx wrote: »

ok, then reassign them.

Where? I'm all for it but this is the Labour party we are talking about, they won't do anything to piss of their union chums.

davoxx wrote: »

ok but private schools pay their teachers more than public schools.

They do? Do you have a link for this?

davoxx wrote: »

when they are made private sector, you know by cutting the funding, then it will be a private sector issue.

huh? Public paid school teachers striking is a public sector issue. Cutting their funding doesn't suddenly make them private sector teachers because no matter what the Government will still pay their wages.

davoxx wrote: »

i doubt you'll need to build a new schools just to accommodate all of them.

I'd rather the government didn't go on simple guess work.

davoxx wrote: »

huh? how are you paying extra taxes? you pay taxes currently so everyone can go to school, like you have.
you might be happy taking free education and not paying for others to avail of it ...

Money to build new or upgrade current schools won't just magically fall out of the sky, it will have to be raised from somewhere.

davoxx wrote: »

don't be honest, be right. and since it seems you are wrong, just don't say anything.

i dunno, i thought the idea of them using public schools, and then better funding it so the everyone has access to the same quality of education is a very good idea ...

I'm wrong? You don't even seem to know how the private school work in terms of who pays the teachers.

davoxx

Chucky the tree wrote: »

They do? Do you have a link for this?

no linky, thought it was obvious.
the state pays both the teacher salaries.
in the private school the school also pays the teacher for "extra" circular activities.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'm wrong? You don't even seem to know how the private school work in terms of who pays the teachers.

well yes, see i do know who pays who. you are confusing my solution of having the private schools privately funded, which would mean that the teachers are no longer paid by the state, with the current implementation where the state pays for the private teachers.

also, i worked with both private and public school teachers, so i actually know a lot more than any of the people here think they do, i was just trying not to use my insider knowledge from affecting what are obvious facts.

Spiderman68

As it's Friday a little levity. As mentioned Michael O Keary is ' a product' of Clongowes. As it happens 5 of Leinsters Rugby Team playing tomorrow are also products! Kearney brothers * 2, Mc Fadden and Darcy. Reddan spent brief period there. Money well spent? I think so.-

Chucky the tree

davoxx wrote: »

no linky, thought it was obvious.
the state pays both the teacher salaries.
in the private school the school also pays the teacher for "extra" circular activities.

So they do get paid the same?

davoxx wrote: »

well yes, see i do know who pays who. you are confusing my solution of having the private schools privately funded, which would mean that the teachers are no longer paid by the state, with the current implementation where the state pays for the private teachers.

also, i worked with both private and public school teachers, so i actually know a lot more than any of the people here think they do, i was just trying not to use my insider knowledge from affecting what are obvious facts.

For someone who's worked with teachers I'm surprised you didn't realise they can't lose their jobs.

davoxx

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So they do get paid the same?

well yes, the private school teachers just take home more pay.

i mean if you want to avoid the fact that they are being paid twice, knock yourself out.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

For someone who's worked with teachers I'm surprised you didn't realise they can't lose their jobs.

for someone who has not, i'm surprised that you are adamant that they can't lose their jobs.

Chucky the tree

davoxx wrote: »

well yes, the private school teachers just take home more pay.

i mean if you want to avoid the fact that they are being paid twice, knock yourself out.


for someone who has not, i'm surprised that you are adamant that they can't lose their jobs.

They are not being paid twice. They are just paid for work that some public school teachers volunteer for. It's because they can't. A teacher won't lose his or her job because there are no teaching position for them.

Spiderman68

Chuck is correct. By definition all boarding schools private. In all such institutions , 'elite' or otherwise the teachers and support staff must take on extra duties. For instance boarders need 24 hour supervision both at meals, obviously at class time and then after school activities such as sport, study , supper supervision and then dormitory duties. As a result these teachers are paid for such work and rightly so. Having boarded have huge admiration for same people. Often have families themselves but give huge time and dedication to the school. I am not a teacher.

davoxx

Chucky the tree wrote: »

They are not being paid twice. They are just paid for work that some public school teachers volunteer for. It's because they can't. A teacher won't lose his or her job because there are no teaching position for them.

well that is not factually true, they also get paid even if they don't do any "volunteer" work. the excuse is that they always do "volunteer" ...

to be fair i don't see you outraged that public school teachers have to do volunteer work for free, talk about double standards ...

davoxx

Spiderman68 wrote: »

Chuck is correct. By definition all boarding schools private. In all such institutions , 'elite' or otherwise the teachers and support staff must take on extra duties. For instance boarders need 24 hour supervision both at meals, obviously at class time and then after school activities such as sport, study , supper supervision and then dormitory duties. As a result these teachers are paid for such work and rightly so. Having boarded have huge admiration for same people. Often have families themselves but give huge time and dedication to the school. I am not a teacher.

well sorry chuck, i never knew you were right, i mean even in non boarders, they must be doing such extra duties as teaching a class, correcting homework ... wow, how do all those non private school teachers survive? oh yeah the salary includes this time for full time permanent teachers regardless of whether it is a private school or not ...