Teachers pay again

Tim Robbins

Anne Fay from the INTO writes in the Irish Times today:

Sir, – Mary Minihan’s interview with Ruairí Quinn (Home News, July 2012) refers to “teachers whose pay accounts for more than 80 per cent of the education budget”. This is factually incorrect.

The cost of teachers’ salaries at primary and post-primary this year is €3.78 billion. This is roughly 44 per cent of the education budget of €8.67 billion, about half the percentage quoted by your reporter.

Your readers can verify this in the revised estimates for the public service 2012 available on per.gov.ie/wp-content/ uploads/REV-2012-Final1.pdf – Yours, etc,

ANNE FAY,
President,
Irish National Teachers’ Organisation,
Parnell Square,
Dublin 1.

Several people here claim that teachers get 80% of the budget. I wonder does that include pensions and expenses which Anne Fay has left out.

Thoughts?

NIMAN

some topics just keep coming around ... and around .. and around.

Sleepy

I'd presume her figure for Salaries doesn't include pensions, allowances, marking, supervision etc.

Welease

NIMAN wrote: »

some topics just keep coming around ... and around .. and around.

It probably wouldn't happen if people in this country (on both sides) would actually produce the real data with relevant information instead of producing figures that are intended mislead and benefit their argument based on omitting specific data..

Case in point above.. either the 44% or 80% contains allowances, pensions etc or not. The information exists and is accessible.. time to start using it.

ardmacha

It probably wouldn't happen if people in this country (on both sides) would actually produce the real data with relevant information instead of producing figures that are intended mislead and benefit their argument based on omitting specific data..

We see plenty of examples of people here using figures out of context knowing they are misleading or at least uncaring that they are misleading. But this is an internet forum, the real problem is the low standard of journalism where these "facts" are thrown about all of the time, according to the witchhunt of the day, without journalists being in the least embarrassed that they are providing misleading information.

These matters are complex and people have to be willing to disaggregate the date into its components and then adjust for things. For instance, people will happily add on the cost of teachers pensions, without allowing for pension contributions which may not cover the full cost, but do go some part of the way. Likewise we have all seen quotes where the proportion of education spending on salaries in Ireland is compared with Finland or some such place. The higher proportion represented by salaries in Ireland is always represented as saying something about salaries and not about the amount spent on other things. Even in Ireland many argue that spending should be reorganised to provide free books and school meals and spend less on back to school allowances and children's allowances. This would reduce salaries as a proportion of education expenditure without changing levels of salary at all!

The information exists and is accessible.. time to start using it.

Sadly the information is sometimes not accessible, the government needs to look at the classification of expenditure so that comparisons can be made

Dannyboy83

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Thoughts?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0711/1224319792595.html
MORE THAN 400 second-level teachers and 32 Department of Education officials earn over €100,000 a year, according to new figures.

The figures provided by Minister for Education and Skills Ruairí Quinn in the Dáil will raise fresh controversy about high levels of pay across the education sector.

More than 70 per cent of the Government’s €9 billion education budget is absorbed by pay and pension payments, compared to an OECD average of 63 per cent.

What are they spending the other 56% on ???
€5 billion on Chalk is it?

The figures show that 260 secondary school teachers and 146 VEC teachers earn over €100,000. Others earning a six-figure salary include three senior officials at the State Examinations Commission and two at the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

The figures tend to confirm findings by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that teachers’ salaries here are among the highest in the world, even though overall spending on education remains low when compared to other countries.

The figures reveal how a further 473 teachers earn more than €90,000 a year while 1,338 earn over €80,000. In most cases, they are principals of large schools.

In recent years, the Department of Education has found it difficult to fill some school principal posts because of the heavy workload associated with the job.

More than 6,000 teachers earn between €70,000 and €80,000 while more than 14,000 earn between €60,000 and €70,000.

The high number of staff at the Department of Education earning over €100,000 is a striking feature of the list. The figure of 32 includes the secretary general, 10 assistant secretaries and other senior officials.

High pay levels are also a feature of the third-level sector. Last year more than 1,200 employees earned over €100,000, while more than 200 earned over €150,000.

The OECD has pointed out how the Republic is close to the bottom of an international league table ranking overall education spending in relation to wealth or gross domestic product. The State is 27th of 31 countries surveyed.

What motivation do the OECD have to misrepresent the truth?
What motivation do the INTO have to misrepresent the truth?

n97 mini

"Pay" = money paid to people

She only mentions salaries. She only mentions primary and secondary and not third level, or is third level not considered education?

This is what I would call misrepresenting the truth.

ardmacha

The OECD has pointed out how the Republic is close to the bottom of an international league table ranking overall education spending in relation to wealth or gross domestic product. The State is 27th of 31 countries surveyed.

What motivation do the OECD have to misrepresent the truth?

Quite. As the OECD ranking shows, financial problems in Ireland do not result from overspending on education. The root of the problems lie elsewhere.

She only mentions primary and secondary and not third level, or is third level not considered education?

This is what I would call misrepresenting the truth.

The quote related to "teachers" and the woman provided data about teachers, thirld level had nothing to do with it. This is quite the opposite of misrepresentation, but a welcome inclusion of data in the debate.

Tipp Man

ardmacha wrote: »

Quite. As the OECD ranking shows, financial problems in Ireland do not result from overspending on education. The root of the problems lie elsewhere.

We have a huge annual budget deficit - education is part of the annual budget spend

So having teachers with some of the highest salaries in the world is indeed part of the root of the problem - along with every other public sector salary that is too high

20,000 teachers earning over 60k in a country that is stone broke and you think this in not part of the problem??

sarumite

Where does the budget for Third level education come from?

n97 mini

ardmacha wrote: »

The quote related to "teachers" and the woman provided data about teachers, thirld level had nothing to do with it. This is quite the opposite of misrepresentation, but a welcome inclusion of data in the debate.

She appears to be implying that pay only makes up 44% of the education budget, whereas in fact the original interview was incorrect on a minor technicality.

Dannyboy83

Tipp Man wrote: »

We have a huge annual budget deficit - education is part of the annual budget spend

So having teachers with some of the highest salaries in the world is indeed part of the root of the problem - along with every other public sector salary that is too high

20,000 teachers earning over 60k in a country that is stone broke and you think this in not part of the problem??

I think Ardmacha's point was not the amount of money being spent, but the distribution of the money available to be spent, so you are probably both making similar points.

The birthrate at the moment is surging, I'm sure it must be near replacement levels, which is quite astonishing when you consider the nation has the highest emigration rate in the EU, double that of Lithuania which is in 2nd place.

There is probably no way for the nation to reduce education spending (The nation will probably need to spend more in fact)...but there is no question that the nation needs to redistribute the money available to be spent far more carefully.

Even if the nation continues to spend the same amount of money, the proportion consumed by pay and pensions will have to decrease to OECD levels at minimum.
The fortunate aspect is that there are, evidently, a great number of people who are paid vastly above average, so the nation should have ample room to do this without reducing people to penury.

At this stage, I believe there is only one way the nation will be able to effectively reduce the deficit, and that is by hitting social welfare.

A billion deducted from public sector pay and pensions translates to a half billion saved at best.
A half billion from social welfare is a half billion.

n97 mini

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

There is probably no way for the nation to reduce education spending

Consolidate small rural schools. The pupil:staff ratio is very generous in the smaller ones, an order of magnitude more generous than urban schools.

NIMAN

n97 mini wrote: »

Consolidate small rural schools. The pupil:staff ratio is very generous in the smaller ones, an order of magnitude more generous than urban schools.

Easier said than done.

I live in a rural location with a lot of small schools but if, for example, you closed 2 and forced all the children to go to say a 3rd mainone, you'd have to probably build an extension or buy ground to add prefabs and put on buses to bring the kids from their remote location to the main school, and this may well offset the advantage of saving on some teachers wages in the short term.

Sleepy

NIMAN wrote: »

Easier said than done.

I live in a rural location with a lot of small schools but if, for example, you closed 2 and forced all the children to go to say a 3rd mainone, you'd have to probably build an extension or buy ground to add prefabs and put on buses to bring the kids from their remote location to the main school, and this may well offset the advantage of saving on some teachers wages in the short term.

You make a good point that merging schools might require an investment in the infrastructure of one or the other. My preference here would be to use such a move to wrest control of our education system away from the Catholic Church.

Why would you have to put on buses? If parents choose to live in remote locations that make bringing their children to school a hassle, that's their problem to deal with.

NIMAN

You can hardly ask all people living in remote places to now sell up, leave farms etc and move into population centres.

Do you live in a rural location? Because as I said, it sounds easy on paper but not so easy to do in the real world.

Locally here, if some small schools were closed, some families could be up to 10 miles from their new school. Thats a 40 mile daily trip to drop kids off and pick them up.

ardmacha

Why would you have to put on buses? If parents choose to live in remote locations that make bringing their children to school a hassle, that's their problem to deal with.

Such people may not live in a more remote location than those near the merged facility. Citizens have a reasonable expectation that the State will not disadvantage them relative to other citizens by placing a school elsewhere and then failing to provide transport.

Geuze

It's probably the case that pay and pensions consumes 80% of the education spending.

As you would expect it to.

The union rep is pointing out that (primary and sec) teachers pay (note, not pensions) is 44% of the total education budget.

Sleepy

NIMAN wrote: »

You can hardly ask all people living in remote places to now sell up, leave farms etc and move into population centres.

Do you live in a rural location? Because as I said, it sounds easy on paper but not so easy to do in the real world.

Locally here, if some small schools were closed, some families could be up to 10 miles from their new school. Thats a 40 mile daily trip to drop kids off and pick them up.

ardmacha wrote: »

Such people may not live in a more remote location than those near the merged facility. Citizens have a reasonable expectation that the State will not disadvantage them relative to other citizens by placing a school elsewhere and then failing to provide transport.

It's the opportunity cost of living somewhere that has much cheaper accommodation costs and population density: you get less convenient services as they're much more expensive to provide on a per capita basis.

In an urban environment, there's the economies of scale and, simply put, the tax base, to cover the cost of local services. This doesn't exist in rural environments and, as such. those living in rural areas have to accept that there'll be a transport cost to accessing those services.

Nothing stopping a local bus company from providing school run services but I don't see why rural dwellers should be subsidised by the urban taxpayer to the extent that they get better services than those subsidising them.

NIMAN

Sorry but I think your argument that we should all live in Dublin is a bit late.
I think slightly too many people have settled over the country now to move.:rolleyes:

You should not be punished for living in a rural location. Our services are a lot worse, we accept that, but for something like kids education, I think punishing the rural population is a step too far.

Sleepy

Why should urban taxes pay for school buses for rural dwellers when that service isn't provided to urbanites?

My argument isn't that everyone should move to Dublin, that's a strawman and you know it.

My argument is that money should not be wasted in keeping 4 schools open when 1 school would provide the same level of service to those students. Yes, the parents will have to arrange transport, whether by school bus, car pools or longer drop offs. That said, how long does a ten mile drive take in a rural environment? Certainly couldn't be any longer than the 30-45 minutes it takes me to commute that far to my job in Blanchardstown from Clontarf?

TheTurk1972

Any company I have ever worked in salaries always account for > 80% of the running costs.

Its very rare to have a private company where salaries are not a massive proportion of the costs.

NIMAN

We all pay tax. To say urban dwellers taxes pay for rural schools is nonsense.

By that logic you could say that rural taxes are paying for your waste disposal from your house, whereas I have to buy and maintain a septic tank.

A ten mile drive in a rural location can take longer. We don't have billions pumped into our roads like you get. I think to expect a parent to drive 10miles to school, then 10 miles back, then 10 miles again to pick up then 10 miles back is hardly fair. You say you do that on a commute, and so do I , but thats for me in a car, not my kids. Do Dublin children have to drive far to their local schools?

Manach

TheTurk1972 wrote: »

Any company I have ever worked in salaries always account for > 80% of the running costs.

Its very rare to have a private company where salaries are not a massive proportion of the costs.

Based purely on a google search, and I'm claiming no expertise on this as it is a US study:

"The three industries with the highest median percentage of salaries as a percentage of operating expense were health care services (52%), for-profit services (50%) and educational services (50%).2 Durable goods manufacturing (22%), construction/mining and oil/gas (22%), and retail/wholesale trade (18%) had the lowest median percentages of salaries as a percentage of operating expense."
- link:

n97 mini

NIMAN wrote: »

Easier said than done.

I live in a rural location with a lot of small schools but if, for example, you closed 2 and forced all the children to go to say a 3rd mainone, you'd have to probably build an extension

That would be a one-off cost that would be quickly recouped in the saved wages. Three schools require three principals, one school requires only one. That's a huge saving in itself.

I think secondary and primary schools should be roughly equal in size and number, and probably in location. If you co-located them on the one site (but obviously separate) economies of scale would save even more.

n97 mini

NIMAN wrote: »

You should not be punished for living in a rural location.

You probably shouldn't, but if there are extra costs associated with living there you should be willing to pay them all, not just some of them.

TheTurk1972

Manach wrote: »

Based purely on a google search, and I'm claiming no expertise on this as it is a US study:

"The three industries with the highest median percentage of salaries as a percentage of operating expense were health care services (52%), for-profit services (50%) and educational services (50%).2 Durable goods manufacturing (22%), construction/mining and oil/gas (22%), and retail/wholesale trade (18%) had the lowest median percentages of salaries as a percentage of operating expense."
- link:

And yet I have worked in the finance departments of a fair few companies, including US companies, and have a completely different experience.

Glad i'm not a public sector worker tbh.
Everyone assumes they know everything about them.

One of my friends who is a teacher is down €4,000 in his take home pay in the last 5 years. I am up €15,000.

I don't know any public sector worker whose take home hasnt fallen in the last 5 years.
And I don't know any private sector worker whose take home has fallen in the last 5 years.

And my pension is better than theirs. Kinda feel sorry for the abuse they get.

I only know 2 people who lost their jobs and couldn't get another quickly in the last 5 years.
And hose two I don't know how they ever got a job in the first place anyway.

NIMAN

n97 mini wrote: »

You probably shouldn't, but if there are extra costs associated with living there you should be willing to pay them all, not just some of them.

I really pray that the full property tax when it comes in is based on value alone, and then we will see how all the Dubliners start their moaning about how the chulchies are getting it too cheap.:D

TheTurk1972

NIMAN wrote: »

I really pray that the full property tax when it comes in is based on value alone, and then we will see how all the Dubliners start their moaning about how the chulchies are getting it too cheap.:D

Property tax should be like the council tax in the UK. Paid by the person living in the house, who is consuming the local services.

rainbowtrout

NIMAN wrote: »

You can hardly ask all people living in remote places to now sell up, leave farms etc and move into population centres.

Do you live in a rural location? Because as I said, it sounds easy on paper but not so easy to do in the real world.

Locally here, if some small schools were closed, some families could be up to 10 miles from their new school. Thats a 40 mile daily trip to drop kids off and pick them up.

What I've never understood about this argument is that parents complain about small schools closing and their child will have to go to another primary school 5 - 10 miles away instead of the one half a mile down the road, yet when they go to secondary school in a rural area there tends to be only one school which would have a 10-15 miles(and sometimes larger) catchment radius for all those small schools and there never seems to be an issue in getting the students to school. So what's the big deal about having all the children in a catchment area attending one large primary school when they are perfectly capable of doing it for secondary school?

As for small schools. I live in a small town, population around 2,500. There are three primary schools in the town, a boys national school, girls national school and a mixed COI school. Just looking at the stats on them there. Total combined students for three schools: 327. I would say 500m is the greatest distance between any two of the schools.

Diarmuid

NIMAN wrote: »

We all pay tax. To say urban dwellers taxes pay for rural schools is nonsense.

I'm afraid you're wrong

Tipp Man

rainbowtrout wrote: »

What I've never understood about this argument is that parents complain about small schools closing and their child will have to go to another primary school 5 - 10 miles away instead of the one half a mile down the road, yet when they go to secondary school in a rural area there tends to be only one school which would have a 10-15 miles(and sometimes larger) catchment radius for all those small schools and there never seems to be an issue in getting the students to school. So what's the big deal about having all the children in a catchment area attending one large primary school when they are perfectly capable of doing it for secondary school?

.

The vast majority of secondary schools around the country have their kids bussed to the school from rural areas - catchment areas often spanning 15-20 miles

rainbowtrout

Tipp Man wrote: »

The vast majority of secondary schools around the country have their kids bussed to the school from rural areas - catchment areas often spanning 15-20 miles

So why not do it for primary schools?

Tipp Man

Diarmuid wrote: »

I'm afraid you're wrong

Maybe if "the Dubs" were paying for resources which were coming from other counties then the spread of income might be a bit different - main 1's water and culchies themselves who represent a large proportion of the working population in Dublin. The culchies are generating income and paying tax in Dublin thereby skewing the figures in favour of Dublin.

Another huge factor is that many/most company headquarters are Dublin based so they pay tax in Dublin even though their main productive activity is not in Dublin at all - and in the case of the IFSC not even in this country

Their is an element of society in the cities - especially Dublin - which seems to want to cut down anything that moves outside "the pale". Maybe its time to get "the pale" back into action and let the rest of us fend for ourselves - if it shut people up it would be more than worth it

byhookorbycrook

How much of this 80% goes to inspectors,DES staff-both clerical and those in say the building sections, does Ho chi Quinn's salary come from this 80%?

spud_gunner

Tipp Man wrote: »

The vast majority of secondary schools around the country have their kids bussed to the school from rural areas - catchment areas often spanning 15-20 miles

only a small minority of pupils travel 15 to 20 miles to secondary school each year , some do but its not out of nesscessity but choice , i.e , they dont like the one closes to them , i live in a very rural part of ireland and the nearest secondary school is eight mile

but im more concerned about the redicolous situation we now have where many rural schools have less than twenty pupils yet employ at least two teachers

in the parish where i live , their are three schools within a four mile radius, the largest in in the village has ninety pupils , the one closest to me has 16 and the one furthest from me has around the same , were the two smallest schools closed and merged with the largest most central school , the furthest any student would have to travel to school is four miles and for the majority , it would be between two and three

this isnt the australian outback , this notion that if we close a rural primary with twelve kids , they will spend an hour travelling to school is simply not based on any kind of reality , as for this social cost lark , whats that all about , apart from kids and their parents , the local school is irrelevant to everyone else , its not the post office , the cattle mart or the community hall

n97 mini

spud_gunner wrote: »

some do but its not out of nesscessity but choice , i.e , they dont like the one closes to them

I've at least one rural friend who has chosen the school his kids go to based on the number of travellers in the school. Sad but true.

Tipp Man

rainbowtrout wrote: »

So why not do it for primary schools?

Never said not too - somebody above questioned why if primary schools were closed buses would need to be provided

Tipp Man

spud_gunner wrote: »

only a small minority of pupils travel 15 to 20 miles to secondary school each year , some do but its not out of nesscessity but choice , i.e , they dont like the one closes to them , i live in a very rural part of ireland and the nearest secondary school is eight mile

but im more concerned about the redicolous situation we now have where many rural schools have less than twenty pupils yet employ at least two teachers

in the parish where i live , their are three schools within a four mile radius, the largest in in the village has ninety pupils , the one closest to me has 16 and the one furthest from me has around the same , were the two smallest schools closed and merged with the largest most central school , the furthest any student would have to travel to school is four miles and for the majority , it would be between two and three

this isnt the australian outback , this notion that if we close a rural primary with twelve kids , they will spend an hour travelling to school is simply not based on any kind of reality , as for this social cost lark , whats that all about , apart from kids and their parents , the local school is irrelevant to everyone else , its not the post office , the cattle mart or the community hall

Most "rural" secondary schools will have a catchment area of circa 15 miles - some more some less - just because you are only 8 miles doesn't mean everybody is

On rural primary schools i can't think of any primary school in our vacinity which has less than 90 or 100 kids - some with many more. What part of the country exactly are there 3 schools in a 4 mile radius - 2 of which are tiny? What villages are we referring to?

I think most people would agree that if this does exist it should be rationalised - however in my part of the country these very small schools were closed decades ago

Tipp Man

n97 mini wrote: »

I've at least one rural friend who has chosen the school his kids go to based on the number of travellers in the school. Sad but true.

I hope you are not trying to suggest that people in cities don't actively choose which school their kids go to on the same/similar grounds??

poeticseraphim

NIMAN wrote: »

We all pay tax. To say urban dwellers taxes pay for rural schools is nonsense.

By that logic you could say that rural taxes are paying for your waste disposal from your house, whereas I have to buy and maintain a septic tank.

A ten mile drive in a rural location can take longer. We don't have billions pumped into our roads like you get. I think to expect a parent to drive 10miles to school, then 10 miles back, then 10 miles again to pick up then 10 miles back is hardly fair. You say you do that on a commute, and so do I , but thats for me in a car, not my kids. Do Dublin children have to drive far to their local schools?

What this illistrates is that the rural area is underdeveloped and lacking in structure and that this in the long term is mcuh more expensive than development and reform. Smaller communities in rural areas are unsustainable regardless of fairness and tax. No Dublin children don't have to travel so far. Why??? Because they live in built up communities where there is enough population density to support the need for these services. There is not the demand in numbers for such services in tiny rural areas. We need much much better national planning for towns and how to integrate them into larger communities that can support these services such as better transport. Choosing to live in the middle of wherever means you live wih the services i am sure people paid less for their ernt or house than people in Dublin..and the cost of living is higher for othr things in Dublin....it's lat to suggest people live in bigger communities true..but it's worth considering in planning towns for the future

n97 mini

Tipp Man wrote: »

I hope you are not trying to suggest that people in cities don't actively choose which school their kids go to on the same/similar grounds??

Most don't have a choice. Kids go to the school that has a place for them.

Vizzy

n97 mini wrote: »

Most don't have a choice. Kids go to the school that has a place for them.

Could they not commute 15-20 miles like their rural compatriots ?

rainbowtrout

Tipp Man wrote: »

Most "rural" secondary schools will have a catchment area of circa 15 miles - some more some less - just because you are only 8 miles doesn't mean everybody is

On rural primary schools i can't think of any primary school in our vacinity which has less than 90 or 100 kids - some with many more. What part of the country exactly are there 3 schools in a 4 mile radius - 2 of which are tiny? What villages are we referring to?

I think most people would agree that if this does exist it should be rationalised - however in my part of the country these very small schools were closed decades ago

There are 618 primary schools with less than 50 pupils on the roll in the country at the moment.

There are 1454 primary schools with less than 100 pupils on the roll.

Even the tiny schools that you don't think exist in close proximity: there are 100 schools with less than 20 pupils on the roll. The islands only account for a small fraction of them as well. These are mainly located in west of Ireland counties: Mayo, Donegal, Roscommon, Leitrim, but also Kerry, Cork etc. Have a look at some of the addresses and you will see the same town crop up a few times.


http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/Data-on-Individual-Schools/

First link on the page will show you the numbers in every primary school in the country.

Welease

rainbowtrout wrote: »

There are 618 primary schools with less than 50 pupils on the roll in the country at the moment.

There are 1454 primary schools with less than 100 pupils on the roll.

Even the tiny schools that you don't think exist in close proximity: there are 100 schools with less than 20 pupils on the roll. The islands only account for a small fraction of them as well. These are mainly located in west of Ireland counties: Mayo, Donegal, Roscommon, Leitrim, but also Kerry, Cork etc. Have a look at some of the addresses and you will see the same town crop up a few times.


http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/Data-on-Individual-Schools/

First link on the page will show you the numbers in every primary school in the country.

I've haven't looked through the detail linked above, but I imagine part of the problem is also caused by our Religious bias/variety in schools. Local to us are several primary schools of differing faiths, some with as low as 6 children per year. How many small towns provide both Protestant and Catholic schools with low numbers?

rainbowtrout

Welease wrote: »

I've haven't looked through the detail linked above, but I imagine part of the problem is also caused by our Religious bias/variety in schools. Local to us are several primary schools of differing faiths, some with as low as 6 children per year. How many small towns provide both Protestant and Catholic schools with low numbers?

True there would be some small schools that would be small because they are serving the COI population of the area but still this doesn't account for every small school in the country.

Welease

rainbowtrout wrote: »

True there would be some small schools that would be small because they are serving the COI population of the area but still this doesn't account for every small school in the country.

True.. but we could look to amalgamate these schools into one, and provide seperate religious lessons (if that was an issue) with mobile religious teachers where necessary. At present we pay for multiple teachers and buildings etc. for quarter full classes. It won't solve world hunger, but it frees up some resources.

antoobrien

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Several people here claim that teachers get 80% of the budget. I wonder does that include pensions and expenses which Anne Fay has left out.

The information is all in that link she provided. The gross figures for the education sector are:
Pay: €5,351,197,000
Pensions: €1,102,865,000
Total Budget: €8,062,710,000

primary level
Teachers pay (including supervision & cost of subs etc): €2,050,404,000
Pensions payments: €493,198,000

Second level & further education
Teachers pay: €1,148,095,000
Pensions payments: €351,131,000

Someone asked if the Minster's wages is paid from the DOE budget - yup.

spud_gunner

Tipp Man wrote: »

Most "rural" secondary schools will have a catchment area of circa 15 miles - some more some less - just because you are only 8 miles doesn't mean everybody is

On rural primary schools i can't think of any primary school in our vacinity which has less than 90 or 100 kids - some with many more. What part of the country exactly are there 3 schools in a 4 mile radius - 2 of which are tiny? What villages are we referring to?

I think most people would agree that if this does exist it should be rationalised - however in my part of the country these very small schools were closed decades ago

im not prepared to identify the location but i can assure you that primary schools with less than twenty pupils are quite common in this country

spud_gunner

rainbowtrout wrote: »

There are 618 primary schools with less than 50 pupils on the roll in the country at the moment.

There are 1454 primary schools with less than 100 pupils on the roll.

Even the tiny schools that you don't think exist in close proximity: there are 100 schools with less than 20 pupils on the roll. The islands only account for a small fraction of them as well. These are mainly located in west of Ireland counties: Mayo, Donegal, Roscommon, Leitrim, but also Kerry, Cork etc. Have a look at some of the addresses and you will see the same town crop up a few times.


http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/Data-on-Individual-Schools/

First link on the page will show you the numbers in every primary school in the country.

their are plenty of primary schools with less than twenty pupils less than an hour from dublin

spud_gunner

Welease wrote: »

True.. but we could look to amalgamate these schools into one, and provide seperate religious lessons (if that was an issue) with mobile religious teachers where necessary. At present we pay for multiple teachers and buildings etc. for quarter full classes. It won't solve world hunger, but it frees up some resources.

you could have a primary school with one teacher , four pupils and a pet goldfish and if you tried to close it , before you could clean the blackboard , a local action group would be up and running , squealing about how it was the worst thing to hit the parish since the famine and that only for the bankers , every child in ireland could have their own private tutor