Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

Dave!

A DISPUTE OVER whether the State’s subsidies for private schools should be cut in the next Budget has split Government opinion.

Labour junior minister Alan Kelly has described the annual subvention – totalling about €96 million – as “a luxury rather than a necessity” and said it would need to be examined as part of the €2.25 billion of spending cuts required in the upcoming Budget.

However, Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar has today insisted that not every parent who sends their child to a fee-paying school is “super rich” and that many make huge sacrifices to do so. Varadkar added that closing down such schools would cost the State money, the Irish Times reports.

I don't get why the State is so mixed up with private schools in the first place. The Dept of Education pays the teachers' salaries doesn't it? And also pays a subvention for the running of the school. Surely if some private individual/company wants to start up a private school, then they should be free to do so (assuming they meet certain conditions, and follow the department curriculum), and the State shouldn't need to be involved other than that? Perhaps simplistic, can't say I've given it a lot of thought.

I've seen religion be used as justification, because most minority faith schools are private. I'm of the opinion that public schools should all be secular, but in the absence of that because so many schools are under Catholic patronage, would there be an equality issue if the State failed to provide funding to all the minority faiths too?

spank_inferno

Some posh area TD was on the "Morning Ireland" this morning practically in tears at the thought of her poor constituents already paying thousands for private education having to pay a little more.

Of course it should be cut.... and phased out over time altogether as it would take time to increase alternate capacity.
(Or the state could just buy the private schools and have them open to all!)

It's abhorrent that poorer tax-payers pay for the private education of the wealthy.

Sleepy

The main argument I've heard against this is a pragmatic one: that many students in these schools would revert to the public education system if the fees had to be raised to cover the difference in any subvention thus costing the Dept. of Education more than they'd save.

Idealogically, I'm against private schooling: when the rich and powerful can afford to avoid the consequences of badly run state education, they're less motivated to improve it and in most cases, it's the rich and powerful that get elected. Also, whilst I believe in free market economics, I'm also in favour of meritocracy: one's success in life should be a result of one's own efforts more than the neighbourhood one happened to grow up in. Obviously the wealth of one's background will always play a factor in a free country (ability to afford grinds, educational trips etc.), parental influence can be as strong a factor imo.

VinLieger

No they shouldnt be cut, these schools cost the state 3500 less per student, if the subsidy was to be cut alot of these kid would revert back to non fee paying education again increasing the burden on our already in crisis education system.
Yes people with a chip on their shoulder will argue that they all can pay for it but the reality is alot cant if this subsidy is withdrawn, many families who send their children to private education have chosen to do so at the expense of other luxuries like the odd holiday etc, they value education more.

Another way to look at this is in reality the state isnt subsidising these schools the parents who pay for this are actually subsidising the state as every child in ireland is entitled to a free education that is paid for by tax payers, what these parents are doing is halfing the amount the state needs to spend on their children by paying money to the schools directly.
Its similar to if a group of parents who send their children to a public school decided to band together to pay more for improvements to classrooms, extra curricular activities and other things that arent a priority for the department of education.

This is really labour trying to win back their base as so far they have done nothing for them and private education is an easy target for them that is sure to get their base riled up, but in reality the numbers do not add up as if the payment is taken away many children will simply end up in non fee paying schools with more of the burden being placed upon the tax payer.

I also love the argument people trot out "why should my taxes be paying for these peoples kids" people seem to forget that these parents also pay taxes on top of the private fees

Manach

Never gone to a fee school myself so neutral on the subject.
But AFAIR, the way the constitution is set-up it is up to essential the parents and not the state to be the primary educators of the children and for the state to support the choices made by ensuring that the children receive the same subsidy as public schools - so long as it meets the defined Departmental standards. Given this reflects a more family-centric policy than most other similar countries have, there is a place for fee schools.

spank_inferno

VinLieger wrote: »

I also love the argument people trot out "why should my taxes be paying for these peoples kids" people seem to forget that these parents also pay taxes on top of the private fees

What kind of logic is that?

Just because someone pays income tax does not mean we have to like our taxes subsidising their childs private education!

VinLieger

spank_inferno wrote: »

What kind of logic is that?

Just because someone pays income tax does not mean we have to like our taxes subsidising their childs private education!

Good job and not reading my post at all or at being able to do simple maths. So a parent who sends his or her child to private education pays however much to that school, saving the department of education 3500, they also pay income tax, household charge and many many other taxes like everyone else so in reality you arent paying for their kids, they are more than likely paying for yours as your child costs the state twice as much as theirs.

spank_inferno

so it saves €3500....
Terrific.

So why not make that saving €4000 instead & let the parents make up the extra €500.

I see no harm in letting the already better off contribute more to their childrens exclusivity.

VinLieger

spank_inferno wrote: »

so it saves €3500....
Terrific.

So why not make that saving €4000 instead & let the parents make up the extra €500.

I see no harm in letting the already better off contribute more to their childrens exclusivity.

Fair enough i can agree that the amount could be looked at but cutting off the payment completely is a stupid idea and is the automatic reaction of alot of people who simply dislike the idea of private education and wont listen to the facts of it saves more money than it costs

everdead.ie

I don't believe that a fee paying school should have no state subsidy as I believe we have a responsibility to educate the future of our country.

However if they are paying extra to get more than it is only right that we reduce the amount we subsidize the schools.

I wouldn't withdraw the subsidy completely though there is a balance there to be achieved.

Sleepy

As I said already, I'd be ideologically in favour of getting rid of them altogether but...

This comes down to a question of sums: will the total savings from any cut in subvention per student be more than the cost of accepting the additional students into the public education system.

spank_inferno

VinLieger wrote: »

Fair enough i can agree that the amount could be looked at but cutting off the payment completely is a stupid idea and is the automatic reaction of alot of people who simply dislike the idea of private education and wont listen to the facts of it saves more money than it costs

We agree on that Vin.

I wouldn't have them scrapped either straight away.
Its not practical for the system itself and really unfair on the kids.

Though I would like to see a reduction on state transfers to private schools over time.
Given that this system has existed for nearly a century it would take many years for that to be implemented rationaly. (mabey 20-30 years).

JustinDee

Any educational facility teaching from the national curriculum is equally entitled to a subsidy for every student enrolled to attend.
Doesn't matter if it is a fee-paying or non-fee paying facility.

It isn't a case of the "better off" attending either. Families scrimp and save in order years in advance in order to send their kid(s) to a particular fee-paying school.
Two holidays per year? Second or third property? Second or third motor vehicle? All of these are hardly exclusive to the "better off". A 20-per-day smoker would save over €3000 if they kicked the habit. That's a term fee in some schools.

If fee-paying schools were to be left in the wind, then there had better be a contingency plan on how to facilitate the education of those students affected.

spank_inferno

Sleepy wrote: »

This comes down to a question of sums: will the total savings from any cut in subvention per student be more than the cost of accepting the additional students into the public education system.

Fair point.
Though lets not assume that any cut would inevitably lead to a given student moving back to the state system.

Say the burden on the paying parent increased by €500 - €1000 per year.
That may cause some kids to leave the private system, however I reckon most will just pay the extra to remain within the private school.

So there is a saving to be had.

I think if the Gov were serious about it (which I don't think they are), they should start with a 5% cut starting from say the 2014-2015 term.

.... Then see where it goes from there.

ted1

spank_inferno wrote: »

What kind of logic is that?

Just because someone pays income tax does not mean we have to like our taxes subsidising their childs private education!

Why should I not only subsidse a fee paying pupil but also completely pay for another pupils.
Each child in the state is entitled to n education, if a parent wants to pay abut extra, then what's the harm ?

OldNotWIse

spank_inferno wrote: »

What kind of logic is that?

Just because someone pays income tax does not mean we have to like our taxes subsidising their childs private education!

Er...I think the point was that all children's education is being subsidised by tax...but those who go to fee-paying schools are actually subsidised less because their parents pay extra.

As was already stated: "in reality the state isnt subsidising these schools the parents who pay for this are actually subsidising the state as every child in ireland is entitled to a free education that is paid for by tax payers, what these parents are doing is halfing the amount the state needs to spend on their children by paying money to the schools directly"
If you dont agree with the taxpayer subsidising education then you should withdraw your own child from school because otherwise you're a hypocrite.

Sleepy

ted1 wrote: »

if a parent wants to pay abut extra, then what's the harm ?

Social inequality and the danger of the public education system deteriorating as politicians who are all wealthy enough to avail of private schools for their own children don't care enough about it.

OldNotWIse

Sleepy wrote: »

Social inequality and the danger of the public education system deteriorating as politicians who are all wealthy enough to avail of private schools for their own children don't care enough about it.

Excuse you, my parents were far from "wealthy" when they made sacrifices to send me to the best school they could. Sacrifices. They didn't have a mobile home in Cairn Beach or an extra room plonked onto their house every year, like a lot of people I know who spent money like it was going out of fashion but still begrudge me doing well because I went to a fee paying school. Do these people actually think that paying fees is enough? Do they realise that the student has to put in the work also? Drives me spare when people harp on about how I had things handed to me - I worked damn hard for everything I have and will not have my achievements dismissed as being merely someone else's doing.

JustinDee

Sleepy wrote: »

Social inequality and the danger of the public education system deteriorating as politicians who are all wealthy enough to avail of private schools for their own children don't care enough about it.

"Social inequality"?? lol
"Social inequality" is all around, regardless of the means of income to any particular household and is not involuntary. I've already given an example of a family making their own sacrifices to save for child's education, compared with a perceived "poorer off" family, who can spend/borrow the same and blow on luxury goods and services. Who is more "wealthy"?

On another note, if a private educational organisation is to lose a subsidy potentially damaging its existance, then they can opt out of the department's curriculum and teach their own. The knock-on effects of this happening would dwarf any perceived "social inequality" you might choose to see out there.

JustinDee

I'll also add that "social inequality" can also be Paddy and wife sending kids to a gaelscoil as there are more "Irish" kids there.
Cut the subsidy?

Sleepy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Excuse you, my parents were far from "wealthy" when they made sacrifices to send me to the best school they could. Sacrifices. They didn't have a mobile home in Cairn Beach or an extra room plonked onto their house every year, like a lot of people I know who spent money like it was going out of fashion but still begrudge me doing well because I went to a fee paying school. Do these people actually think that paying fees is enough? Do they realise that the student has to put in the work also? Drives me spare when people harp on about how I had things handed to me - I worked damn hard for everything I have and will not have my achievements dismissed as being merely someone else's doing.

Where did I dismiss your achievements? I don't even know what (if any) they are...

You had a better education than others because your parents could afford it. I believe a parents wealth shouldn't be able to give any student that advantage over any other. Much in the same way I don't believe a parent should be able to buy a student's place in a university, pay someone to give them an apprenticeship over another candidate or hire them ahead of more suitable candidates in a public body.

The exact line of mine you quoted referred to the fact that any TD would be able to pay for private education for their children. This means that the very people charged with managing / improving our education system are able to shield their children from the consequences of any decisions they make regarding that system. That's wrong imo.

JustinDee wrote: »

"Social inequality"?? lol
"Social inequality" is all around, regardless of the means of income to any particular household and is not involuntary. I've already given an example of a family making their own sacrifices to save for child's education, compared with a perceived "poorer off" family, who can spend/borrow the same and blow on luxury goods and services. Who is more "wealthy"?

On another note, if a private educational organisation is to lose a subsidy potentially damaging its existance, then they can opt out of the department's curriculum and teach their own. The knock-on effects of this happening would dwarf any perceived "social inequality" you might choose to see out there.

Personally, I'd ban private education full stop (it'd help curtail religious extremism as an added benefit).

However, regardless of whether a parent struggles to afford private education or whether they can afford to bestow the school in question with a new gymnasium the fact remains they can afford to pay that money. Many other families can't and that's usually through no fault of their own (No matter what sacrifices we made as a family, I couldn't put my children through fee-paying schools).

No, private education is not the only cause of social inequality, but it's a contributing factor and happens to be the subject under discussion. If you want to start a wider topic on social equality, go ahead, if you make any interesting points, I'll probably throw in my own views.

Manach

Sleepy wrote: »

Personally, I'd ban private education full stop (it'd help curtail religious extremism as an added benefit).

I'd invite you to give an example of religious "extremism" traced to Irish private education.

OldNotWIse

Sleepy wrote: »

Where did I dismiss your achievements? I don't even know what (if any) they are...

You had a better education than others because your parents could afford it. I believe a parents wealth shouldn't be able to give any student that advantage over any other. Much in the same way I don't believe a parent should be able to buy a student's place in a university, pay someone to give them an apprenticeship over another candidate or hire them ahead of more suitable candidates in a public body.

The exact line of mine you quoted referred to the fact that any TD would be able to pay for private education for their children. This means that the very people charged with managing / improving our education system are able to shield their children from the consequences of any decisions they make regarding that system. That's wrong imo.


Personally, I'd ban private education full stop (it'd help curtail religious extremism as an added benefit).

However, regardless of whether a parent struggles to afford private education or whether they can afford to bestow the school in question with a new gymnasium the fact remains they can afford to pay that money. Many other families can't and that's usually through no fault of their own (No matter what sacrifices we made as a family, I couldn't put my children through fee-paying schools).

No, private education is not the only cause of social inequality, but it's a contributing factor and happens to be the subject under discussion. If you want to start a wider topic on social equality, go ahead, if you make any interesting points, I'll probably throw in my own views.

I did not say you specifically for Gods sake.

Like I said already, my parents "afforded" it by making sacrifices. My Dad spent 50 years of his life hauling slates up 40ft ladders in all seasons. Now he is in his sixties and is crippled. I am at least thankful that I am able to afford a good standard fo living now so I can pay him back and try to look after him and my mum in their senior years. My parents did without so I could have a better standard of education.

I stand by what I said - there are plenty of parents out there who CAN afford a better education for their child but they choose to drink/smoke/gamble/build extensions/go on foreign holidays/buy pedigree dogs/upgrade the mobile home every year etc - these people have more disposable income than my parents had - but because they chose not to invest in their childrens education, you think they are "less wealthy" - come off it. Enough of the victim mentality.

Sleepy

JustinDee wrote: »

I'll also add that "social inequality" can also be Paddy and wife sending kids to a gaelscoil as there are more "Irish" kids there.
Cut the subsidy?

Similarly, yes, I'd get rid of them in favour of a single curriculum, consistent teaching methodology system based on equality of funding and equal access to resources for all students regardless of their background.

Manach wrote:

Personally, I'd ban private education full stop (it'd help curtail religious extremism as an added benefit).
I'd invite you to give an example of religious "extremism" traced to Irish private education.

I couldn't provide one. Is it really that out there to suggest that with an ever increasing variety of religions being practised in this country it's not a possibility though? If we can secularise our state schools and remove the possibility of having children privately educated, it prevents it ever becoming an issue, ensures equality of access to education and could only help encourage an integrated society.

JustinDee

Sleepy wrote: »

Personally, I'd ban private education full stop (it'd help curtail religious extremism as an added benefit)

Majority of schools in Ireland are run along with Roman Catholic ethos and this is die-cast. How would this "curtail religious extremism"? Why would my children be forced to attend one of these schools? You're trying to force some warped form of 'equality' when it is anything but.

Sleepy wrote: »

However, regardless of whether a parent struggles to afford private education or whether they can afford to bestow the school in question with a new gymnasium the fact remains they can afford to pay that money. Many other families can't and that's usually through no fault of their own (No matter what sacrifices we made as a family, I couldn't put my children through fee-paying schools)

That's quite a brave assumption. Where should this stop? Why not extend to third-level too? Third-level education is an option, not an necessity. Why subsidise somebody else, right?

So what if your family couldn't afford to? Its nobody else's duty to ensure this comes about but your own family's. Why should their circumstances prevent someone else who has managed to save and make sacrifices from having a private school to choose from? The fact doesn't remain that "somebody can simply afford to". It is their management of means which determines their ability to do so. The term "poorer off" or "wealthy" is so undeniably subjective it cannot credibly form the basis of any argument on this matter.

Sleepy wrote: »

No, private education is not the only cause of social inequality, but it's a contributing factor . . .

No, it is not a driving factor to social inequality. Income and how it is managed is far more substantial an effect.

JustinDee

Sleepy wrote: »

Similarly, yes, I'd get rid of them in favour of a single curriculum, consistent teaching methodology system based on equality of funding and equal access to resources for all students regardless of their background

Forced equality (this is what you're proposing here) is a pipe dream and is yet to be proven as successful (go on, give me Norway or another Nordic country as an example, for a laugh).

Where would the money come from to provide this Utopian wonderland of across-the-board homegenous education?

Sleepy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I did not say you specifically for Gods sake.

You quoted me and replied in a single paragraph. Apologies if I took you at what you wrote if you meant something else.

Like I said already, my parents "afforded" it by making sacrifices. My Dad spent 50 years of his life hauling slates up 40ft ladders in all seasons. Now he is in his sixties and is crippled. I am at least thankful that I am able to afford a good standard fo living now so I can pay him back and try to look after him and my mum in their senior years. My parents did without so I could have a better standard of education.

I stand by what I said - there are plenty of parents out there who CAN afford a better education for their child but they choose to drink/smoke/gamble/build extensions/go on foreign holidays/buy pedigree dogs/upgrade the mobile home every year etc - these people have more disposable income than my parents had - but because they chose not to invest in their childrens education, you think they are "less wealthy" - come off it. Enough of the victim mentality.

So what are you suggesting? That all those who can give up luxuries to provide their children with private educations should do so?

What about the rest? Should they just be grateful if the rest of society deign to pay enough taxes to teach their children basic literacy and numeracy? Or should they do without education at all and we'll all go back to the good old days of child labour?

OldNotWIse

JustinDee wrote: »

Majority of schools in Ireland are run along with Roman Catholic ethos and this is die-cast. How would this "curtail religious extremism"? Why would my children be forced to attend one of these schools? You're trying to force some warped form of 'equality' when it is anything but.


That's quite a brave assumption. Where should this stop? Why not extend to third-level too? Third-level education is an option, not an necessity. Why subsidise somebody else, right?

So what if your family couldn't afford to? Its nobody else's duty to ensure this comes about but your own family's. Why should their circumstances prevent someone else who has managed to save and make sacrifices from having a private school to choose from? The fact doesn't remain that "somebody can simply afford to". It is their management of means which determines their ability to do so. The term "poorer off" or "wealthy" is so undeniably subjective it cannot credibly form the basis of any argument on this matter.


No, it is not a driving factor to social inequality. Income and how it is managed is far more substantial an effect.

Agree so much with this. My Father grew up in a tenement. My granfather was an alcoholic. They had n-o-t-h-i-n-g...yet he managed to provide for his children. Oh sorry, I forgot, he could "afford" to :rolleyes:

Annabella1

So Labour Party want to introduce system which will turn out to be more expensive to the exchequer Hmmm

OldNotWIse

Sleepy wrote: »

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I did not say you specifically for Gods sake.

You quoted me and replied in a single paragraph.


So what are you suggesting? That all those who can give up luxuries to provide their children with private educations should do so?

What about the rest? Should they just be grateful if the rest of society deign to pay enough taxes to teach their children basic literacy and numeracy? Or should they do without education at all and we'll all go back to the good old days of child labour?

I'm not "suggesting" anything - I am stating a fact, that plenty of people who moan about not being able to afford fees for their children actually have more income than my parents had - and clearly different priorities.

I'm not really sure why you think it necessary to start throwing about notions of child labour??

JustinDee

Sleepy wrote: »

So what are you suggesting? That all those who can give up luxuries to provide their children with private educations should do so?
What about the rest?

No, they're suggesting that the management of means is important and that the "poorer off" children are not destined to be state school attendees.
"Poorer off" and "wealthy" are subjectively being used here by yourself. A "poorer off" parent can find manage the means to send their kids to private secondary school, the very same as a "wealthy" parent.

Sleepy wrote: »

Should they just be grateful if the rest of society deign to pay enough taxes to teach their children basic literacy and numeracy? Or should they do without education at all and we'll all go back to the good old days of child labour?

Now you're just being melodramatic and silly.

spank_inferno

So Justin... in a nut-shell, are you against parents of children in private education sharing a greater burden of the cost of that education?

Sleepy

JustinDee wrote: »

Majority of schools in Ireland are run along with Roman Catholic ethos and this is die-cast. How would this "curtail religious extremism"? Why would my children be forced to attend one of these schools? You're trying to force some warped form of 'equality' when it is anything but.

Think I've already stated on thread that I'm against religion having any place in schools.

That's quite a brave assumption. Where should this stop? Why not extend to third-level too? Third-level education is an option, not an necessity. Why subsidise somebody else, right?

Sorry, I don't quite understand you here. Are you suggesting we shouldn't bother paying for education at all?

I'm not arguing against subsidising these schools if that makes financial sense at the moment. I stated that in my first post. I'm ideologically opposed to their very existence but ideology is something that we can't really afford in Ireland at the moment.

So what if your family couldn't afford to? Its nobody else's duty to ensure this comes about but your own family's. Why should their circumstances prevent someone else who has managed to save and make sacrifices from having a private school to choose from? The fact doesn't remain that "somebody can simply afford to". It is their management of means which determines their ability to do so. The term "poorer off" or "wealthy" is so undeniably subjective it cannot credibly form the basis of any argument on this matter.

My parents probably could have afforded it tbh, but didn't need to: the public school I attended consistently beat the private schools in the area in terms of Leaving Cert results.

No, it is not a driving factor to social inequality. Income and how it is managed is far more substantial an effect.

And if one has no income beyond social welfare for example? How does one manage that income in order to ensure their children's education is as good as one that's being paid thousands a term for privately?

JustinDee wrote: »

Forced equality (this is what you're proposing here) is a pipe dream and is yet to be proven as successful (go on, give me Norway or another Nordic country as an example, for a laugh).

Where would the money come from to provide this Utopian wonderland of across-the-board homegenous education?

I don't see "the alternative hasn't been proven" as a reason to continue a broken system. I see it as someone failing to defend a system that benefits them to the detriment of others.

Look, I'm no bleeding heart socialist. I believe in free market economics, small government and personal responsibility. However, I am in favour of a meritocracy and believe the closest thing we have to a silver bullet in terms of future economic performance is education.

Given the reigns of power how would I pay for the education reforms I'd like to see? Tell the unions to **** themselves and bring all teachers back onto a single pay-scale, higher than the current new starts are receiving yet lower than that the old guard are trying to defend. Statutory redundancies for those who won't accept the new scales.

Grant allowances for genuine extra qualifications whilst scrapping those for having the bare essentials of an Honours Degree and H.Dip.

Consolidate schools to gain economies of scale (easier in a secular education system). Find savings elsewhere in government: merging local authorities into 6-8 regional authorities, consolidate admin functions of various departments, merge some quangos and abolish others outright, reduce many forms of social welfare.

I'd be happy to take a chainsaw to most of our public sector. Education is the future though. We live in the age of globalisation: until the developing world catch up with the rest of us we will never again be competitive at manufacturing things: we need to get further up the food chain and that means R&D, high-skilled services etc.

JustinDee

spank_inferno wrote: »

So Justin... in a nut-shell, are you against parents of children in private education sharing a greater burden of the cost of that education?

Why, "spank", risk the education system even further by endangering the existance of those fee-paying institutions in the first place? How does this help? If "greater burden" means a risk to the education system then no is my answer.
The equality applicable here is that all national curriculum education facilities are fairly entitled to per-student subsidy. If they are not, they need not adhere to the national curriculum. What then follows is not what you want.
The state cannot afford the (nigh-on impossible) kind of education system some are rooting for in this thread.

spank_inferno

Fine...just so we know where you stand!

I believe those who can afford thousands to send their children to exclusive private schools could probably afford a few percent more.
If they cannot, well the system will have to take care of them like any other child.

We'll agree to disagree.

JustinDee

Sleepy wrote: »

Think I've already stated on thread that I'm against religion having any place in schools

Guess what, it already has a place in schools.

Sleepy wrote: »

Sorry, I don't quite understand you here. Are you suggesting we shouldn't bother paying for education at all?

You're either against subsidisation for private education or not. If you support subsidisations for third-level, then you are for it at secondary level surely?

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not arguing against subsidising these schools if that makes financial sense at the moment. I stated that in my first post. I'm ideologically opposed to their very existence but ideology is something that we can't really afford in Ireland at the moment

Sea-change across the board and instilling some sort of unequal equality measure would cause more harm than good.

Sleepy wrote: »

My parents probably could have afforded it tbh, but didn't need to...

See? Being determined "wealthy" or "poorer off" is subjective. That is exactly my point.

Sleepy wrote: »

the public school I attended consistently beat the private schools in the area in terms of Leaving Cert results

The quality of the schools is not under scrutiny here.
If it is, then the tilt also goes the other way too in other areas.

Sleepy wrote: »

And if one has no income beyond social welfare for example? How does one manage that income in order to ensure their children's education is as good as one that's being paid thousands a term for privately?

You've just stated above they need not have to when you mentioned your local school being better in terms of results.

Sleepy wrote: »

Look, I'm no bleeding heart socialist. I believe in free market economics, small government and personal responsibility. However, I am in favour of a meritocracy and believe the closest thing we have to a silver bullet in terms of future economic performance is education

Its been doing okay so far. Why endanger this status quo?

Sleepy wrote: »

Given the reigns of power how would I pay for the education reforms I'd like to see? Tell the unions to **** themselves and bring all teachers back onto a single pay-scale, higher than the current new starts are receiving yet lower than that the old guard are trying to defend. Statutory redundancies for those who won't accept the new scales

Grant allowances for genuine extra qualifications whilst scrapping those for having the bare essentials of an Honours Degree and H.Dip.

Consolidate schools to gain economies of scale (easier in a secular education system). Find savings elsewhere in government: merging local authorities into 6-8 regional authorities, consolidate admin functions of various departments, merge some quangos and abolish others outright, reduce many forms of social welfare.

I'd be happy to take a chainsaw to most of our public sector. Education is the future though. We live in the age of globalisation: until the developing world catch up with the rest of us we will never again be competitive at manufacturing things: we need to get further up the food chain and that means R&D, high-skilled services etc.

Nothing above is realistically conceivable or even affordable. In my opinion anyway.

Einhard

I really think this is a classic example of cass warfare. I went to school in a public school, and was happy to do so. If I had kids, it wouldn't cross my mind to have them privately educated. So my opinion is objective. I think thi=s is simply an axample of Labour members pandering to the extreme Left in their party, and seeking to protect their flank from Sinn Fein, the ULA et al.

Why shouldn't parents who pay their taxes and charges derive the same benefit from those taxes and charges as everyone else- namely that the state funds the people who teach their kids? The proposal by some Labour members would effectively mean that such parents would pay for others to go to school, but could derive no benefit from the payments for themselves. That's wholly inequitable in my opinion.

Furthermore, it's not even a serious revenue saving measure. If it was, it would have some merit at least. Instead, cutting the payments would yield no saving for the state, and indeed likely add to the state's education bill. The state pays the salaries for teachers in private schools alright, but capitation isn't paid, and the majority of capital costs and incidental expenditure (broken pipes, boliers etc) is paid for from school funds. If even one private school shut down, then the state would have to accomodate the students in the public system, and would have to finance that placement. It would end up costing more than the status quo.

So I really don't see how this is a flyer. Firstly, it's deeply unfair. And secondly, it makes no financial sense.

JustinDee

spank_inferno wrote: »

Fine...just so we know where you stand!

I believe those who can afford thousands to send their children to exclusive private schools could probably afford a few percent more.
If they cannot, well the system will have to take care of them like any other child.

We'll agree to disagree.

How do you determine my family richer than next door's just if I sent my children to a fee-paying school?
Example:
My neighbours have two 4WD vehicles. Are abroad at least twice a year and own a property overseas (via mortgage). One works. The other is homemaker.
They would be choosing to spend their money a certain way and I mine.
I don't drink or smoke. My better half doesn't smoke but occasionally would have a tipple. We both work (hard) and save. Own the one property. Have a car. Currently away on annual holiday now.

Who earns more ie. who is "wealthier" and who is "poorer off"? Why am I subsidising their kids 'free' education?
Nothing against my neighbours, by the way. Love them to bits. Just giving an example.

Farmer Pudsey

There are three main type of schools in Ireland.

Government run public schools which recieve totally funding in the form of a caputation grant and complete funding of build teaching etc these are mostly vocational/comprensive/community schools

Non government ran ( mostly by religous groups) public schools these recieve a capuation grant, funding of teachers and lower rates of funding for building etc.

Finally there is the private schools again mostly run by religous groups. There was always a case made for Non catholic reglious schools in that it was the only way childern of families of these ethos's could recieve education within that ethos.

Gennerally the state gaurantees an education to all childern. The mst expensive to the state is the first Gov ran then non Gov ran then private schools.

If all the cost was transferred in the third to schools all that would happen is that 80-90% would either close or transfer to a public school and the government pick up the cost.

There is a certain amount of elitism attached to private schools and some parents make a judgement call to send there kids there just like some parents target rubgy playing or hurling playing schools and others target what appears to be the better school. If we forced parents to bear the full cost the state would only have one or two private schhools as the cost to parents would triple or quadruple.

In reality nobody tax money is used to subisdise private schools the issue really is should the state force parents who wish to send kids to private schools pick up the total cost.

This is an issue that is also raising it head with health Insurance the state dose not charge the full cost of beds etc to private companies as it is finding now the more it charges the greater cost to the state as people are forces to give up there Health Insurance as it become too expensive

ted1

Sleepy wrote: »

Social inequality and the danger of the public education system deteriorating as politicians who are all wealthy enough to avail of private schools for their own children don't care enough about it.

Some kids are plain Ugly, some kids are pretty, the pretty kids tend to get more attention and are more tolerated. should kids be made wear balaclavas to stop any social inequality.

Social inequlaity exists, get over it. Just because the person down the road can't afford a BMW shoudl we all drive the same heap of sh1t?

Kids have to learn social inequality exists, that way they'll realise if they work hard and study hard they can move on the ladder and enjoy a better way of life.

OldNotWIse

spank_inferno wrote: »

Fine...just so we know where you stand!

I believe those who can afford thousands to send their children to exclusive private schools could probably afford a few percent more.
If they cannot, well the system will have to take care of them like any other child.

We'll agree to disagree.

Or that people who choose to spend their money on their kids instead of on themselves should have to pay even more?

I'm back from coffee and seems we are all still labouring under the illusion that children who don't go to fee-paying schools have poor parents. Oh dear..

Sleepy

JustinDee wrote: »

Guess what, it already has a place in schools.

And as long as it does, I'll have a problem with it.

You're either against subsidisation for private education or not. If you support subsidisations for third-level, then you are for it at secondary level surely?

This is an interesting point. Perhaps the best solution would actually be for the state to get out of providing education at all and simply provide the funding for it? We could all get our kids to do the International Bacalaureate instead...

Sea-change across the board and instilling some sort of unequal equality measure would cause more harm than good.

How would what I propose be an unequal equality measure?

I can see your argument that in the status quo, removal of subvention for those using private schools could be seen as unequal i.e. if your neighbour has more wealth and income than you and avails of state education whilst you pay for private education a difference in capitation could seem unfair. However, when you've opted out of the public education system, I find it strange that you believe you should be entitled to the same level of funding for your own school.

See? Being determined "wealthy" or "poorer off" is subjective. That is exactly my point.

My point would be that not everyone can pay. My parents could have provided me with that opportunity if they'd sacrificed in other areas to do so (at least for secondary school, don't think it would have been an option when I was in primary in the 80's). I could not provide my own children with that opportunity however and while my circumstances stand the chance that I could possibly be able to when they reach secondary (assuming career progression etc.) many, many people do not have any realistic prospect of that.

The quality of the schools is not under scrutiny here.
If it is, then the tilt also goes the other way too in other areas.

You've just stated above they need not have to when you mentioned your local school being better in terms of results.

I'd say quality is exactly the issue. My old school would have been something of an outlier. Why else would anyone avail of private education? To further a kid's chances at wearing the green jersey in rugby? Or set them up in the right circles for a career in politics? Hardly advantages a tax payer should be contributing to and tbh, undesirable things for any citizen to be able to buy imo.

Its been doing okay so far. Why endanger this status quo?

Any improvement requires change and endangers a status quo.

Nothing above is realistically conceivable or even affordable. In my opinion anyway.

Here, I'd largely agree. Without a single-party right-wing government with an massive electoral majority and balls the size of melons, the PS unions would block all of it.

That doesn't mean it's not the right way to go though

ted1

spank_inferno wrote: »

Fine...just so we know where you stand!

I believe those who can afford thousands to send their children to exclusive private schools could probably afford a few percent more.
If they cannot, well the system will have to take care of them like any other child.

We'll agree to disagree.

schools fee cost about 3k, a few extra % would be 100 to 150% more.

you have just showed that you don't understand how the system works.

we don't have private shcolls liek in other countries, our schools are semi private.

OldNotWIse

JustinDee wrote: »

How do you determine my family richer than next door's just if I sent my children to a fee-paying school?
Example:
My neighbours have two 4WD vehicles. Are abroad at least twice a year and own a property overseas (via mortgage). One works. The other is homemaker.
They would be choosing to spend their money a certain way and I mine.
I don't drink or smoke. My better half doesn't smoke but occasionally would have a tipple. We both work (hard) and save. Own the one property. Have a car. Currently away on annual holiday now.

Who earns more ie. who is "wealthier" and who is "poorer off"? Why am I subsidising their kids 'free' education?
Nothing against my neighbours, by the way. Love them to bits. Just giving an example.

Very good post. All these people screaming about subsidising forget that their own kids are being subsidised also.
My parents didn't have their first foreign holiday until they were well past their forties - an alien idea to most parents now!

Sleepy

ted1 wrote: »

Some kids are plain Ugly, some kids are pretty, the pretty kids tend to get more attention and are more tolerated. should kids be made wear balaclavas to stop any social inequality.

Social inequlaity exists, get over it. Just because the person down the road can't afford a BMW shoudl we all drive the same heap of sh1t?

Kids have to learn social inequality exists, that way they'll realise if they work hard and study hard they can move on the ladder and enjoy a better way of life.

Once again, I'm not arguing for a communist state here. I'm saying that we, as a society, should be aiming to create an environment where a child's chances of moving up that ladder are based on their talent and hard-work rather than on the fact they have the right school tie or that their parents happened to fall on hard times during their education.

Idbatterim

It's abhorrent that poorer tax-payers pay for the private education of the wealthy.

LOL at this, the people sending their kids to private education are on average you can take it, paying far more tax and getting far less for it! I went to a private school, I can assure you my parents arent wealthy, there were others in my school who werent even middle class, but their parents made sacrifices to send them to that school. One of the main reasons my parents chose to send me to a private school, was the near 3rd world state of many of the local national schools. Not surprising when pretty much all of the education budget goes on wages!

Kids have to learn social inequality exists, that way they'll realise if they work hard and study hard they can move on the ladder and enjoy a better way of life.

Definetly agree with this!

whats fair in life? the CPA, paying bondholders, no cuts to OAP's, being born here as opposed to Sudan or Beverly Hills?

Fairness I suppose thats paying taxes through the nose for life, breaking your b*lls getting an education and working and being ENTITLED to far less than those who have never contributed anything is it?

ted1

Sleepy wrote: »

Once again, I'm not arguing for a communist state here. I'm saying that we, as a society, should be aiming to create an environment where a child's chances of moving up that ladder are based on their talent and hard-work rather than on the fact they have the right school tie or that their parents happened to fall on hard times during their education.

look at the other side of the coin, your pulling kids down the ladder.

If a child is a room, the general ambition of the room is to be a supermarket manger, he is Being pulled down.

if he was in a private school, the general ambition may be to be a trader, broker, doctor, etc.

jank

Fancy that, Labour coming out with a proposal that will actually cost the state more and has not real targets or goals in achieving educational outcomes all for the goal of "equality".

Madness.

Idbatterim

State-run schools are frequently sending home letters looking for money for art and craft materials, printing costs and I even read recently that some schools are asking that parents send their children to school with their own toilet roll, towels and soap.

There isnt a problem with underfunding in education, there is a problem with over payment, same with the health system!

Gurgle

I think this is a Dublin (The Pale anyway) vs everywhere else issue.

Until I went to college I genuinely thought fee-paying schools only existed at all in this country so that protestants had an alternative to catholic run schools. The only ones I knew of were 'Protestant schools', and protestants seemed to be split about 50:50 between those who went to 'normal' (state run catholic) schools and those who went to private schools.

It was even more bizarre to find Belvedere educated rugby heads who qualified for the student grant. I still haven't got my head around that one.

ted1

vanillavanilla wrote: »

State-run schools are frequently sending home letters looking for money for art and craft materials, printing costs and I even read recently that some schools are asking that parents send their children to school with their own toilet roll, towels and soap.

Yet private schools that take in hefty fees from parents are still getting funds from the State.

It is outrageously imbalanced.

semi private schools have fund raisers too. public schools got money to wards building maintenance and the likes, semi private schools do not.

explain where the imbalance is, a public school pupil costs the state more money. On average private school parent pays more taxes. where is the inbalance.