State Funding for private schools.

Inspector Coptoor

The PTR in state funded schools is currently 19:1.
The PTR in private schools is currently 21:1, will rise to 23:1 in September & the next couple of budgets will more than likely raise it up by 2 points each time til it's 28:1.

Is this a justifiable practice?

Does every child in the country not deserve 1/19th of a teacher paid for by the State?

Why is it that parents who already pay a huge amount of tax are being punished just because they are spending their net income on sending their kids to a private school.
(I'm making this point because as state support is withdrawn bit by bit, the fees will have to go up to keep these schools afloat, either that or the schools either close or go back into the state system.

Are parents who send their children to Public Schools & then on to grinds, the Gaeltacht & Easter Revision courses now being punished in the same way?
No.

Basically - the TUI, as a union, are against private schools in this country.
It would also appear Ruairi Quinn & some members of government are.

Figures released on Monday quoted figures of "discretionary expenditure" for private schools of around €3700 per pupil.

This figure is just wrong as it doesn't take into account the fact that private schools pay their own capital costs.

This kind of attitude will end up losing even more teacher jobs as private schools pay teachers privately to reduce the PTR & if this keeps going the way it's going teachers who are paid privately will be coming looking for jobs in public schools are already very thin on the ground

cursai

How are there parents of private students being punished. The schools are just gonna have to be 'more' private.

Inspector Coptoor

The parents have made a choice to send their kids to private school.

Spending net income.
That point is crucial.

Many of these parents are NOT extremely wealthy, they are making real sacrifices to do this.

In areas of Dublin, like south Dublin, they are very few public schools meaning there is a shortage of places.

On the North Side, some parents chose a private school as the public options aren't great.

These parents are going to end up having to pay a LOT more in fees, which is essentially another form of taxation in my book as the money they pay in taxes is BOT being used to pay for their children's education especially given that they would usually pay MORE tax than the average earner.

cursai

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

The parents have made a choice to send their kids to private school.

Spending net income.
That point is crucial.

Many of these parents are NOT extremely wealthy, they are making real sacrifices to do this.

In areas of Dublin, like south Dublin, they are very few public schools meaning there is a shortage of places.

On the North Side, some parents chose a private school as the public options aren't great.

These parents are going to end up having to pay a LOT more in fees, which is essentially another form of taxation in my book as the money they pay in taxes is BOT being used to pay for their children's education especially given that they would usually pay MORE tax than the average earner.

There's probably a lack of public schools in south because the populace have tended to opt for private schools. Although I'm sure other places in south Dublin like the Tallaght area have an adequate amount of public schools.
Parents off private kids don't pay more tax by sending their kids to private. That's like saying I pay more tax by buying a box of Benson and hedges instead of rollies. They pay more for the product they choose.

Inspector Coptoor

No.
It's not.

State funding applies at a rate of 1/19th of a teacher per pupil.

This changes if you go to a private school, 1/23rd & will rise 1/28th

Therefore, the taxes parents who send kids to private schools aren't being spent in similar or equitable amounts to others.

There's a lot of misinformation out there.
People need to stop drinking all the Kool Aid.
There is a very real attack on private education at the moment.
I feel it's unwarranted.

RealJohn

The general consensus seems to be that the rich should be taxed more so why not "tax" those who send their kids to private schools more? The vast majority of those parents are well off. Ok, not all of them are but have we not learned that we need to cut our cloth according to our measure? The public schools in general provide perfectly adequate education and it's a load of rubbish to suggest that there aren't enough public schools available. If the parents take their children out of private schools they can use the money they save for extra transport to send the kids a little further afield anyway if needs be.

I agreed with you when you said in another thread that teachers need to pull together but if increasing the PTR in private schools gives the government less of an excuse to raise the PTR in general or find more ways of cutting our pay without officially cutting our pay, it's good for all teachers in the country.

And given that state funding for Irish colleges is being decreased regularly, those parents are being "taxed" more too, so you can drop that one from your list.

joebloggs32

I have no problem with private schools, but if someone does not want to send their children to public schools then they should have to pay the costs associated, just like healthcare. Should the state pay the wages of the staff in a private hospital?

You seem to disagree with the government figures, yet when the TUI examined this a few years ago they were almost exactly the same. If they are both wrong then prove it.

teacherhead

Should the state pay the wages of teachers in Grind schools like the institute of education?

The TUI can stand for whatever it wants to stand for once it's approved by members, I happen to think that a high quality, public education system that is accessible to all is worth standing for.

Should parents who send their children to the local vocational school be disadvantaged because they cant pay a school fees?

Have you read the full detail of the report? It takes account of the repayment of capital loans etc.

You will find also that millions have granted to private schools for capital projects by the department, even in recent years.

Voluntary secondary schools often have to take out bank loans to buy equipment and carty out repairs etc, they have no fees. Should they charge?

Miss Lockhart

I am against state funding of private schools. I think the state should provide a place in a non denominational school for everyone and if anyone wants to choose another option they should have to pay for it in its entirety. The state should not be subsidising elitism.

hfallada

If the government keeps cutting private school funding then they will become public with a "voluntary contribution of x thousand". Resulting in more expense for the tax payer. I went to a private school and the school was in bits. The showers were ice cold as the sports hall was built in the 1950s. The half the class rooms were pre fabs.

But the class sizes were small. I only had 3 subjects were they're was more than ten in a class.

Wasn't there even a court case a few years ago that since teachers in private schools are employed by the school and not DoE the school can decedide the level of pay resulting in a lower cost to the tax payer.

Private schools aren't filled with the elite. They're middle class families who don't want to send their children to a school were they're an student

steddyeddy

Well I think private schools will be around for some time but equalization of teaching quality and time given to each pupil is a must. Standardised tests like the leaving cert don't work without equalization.

Powerhouse

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

1) Does every child in the country not deserve 1/19th of a teacher paid for by the State?

Why is it that parents who already pay a huge amount of tax are being punished just because they are spending their net income on sending their kids to a private school.

2) (I'm making this point because as state support is withdrawn bit by bit, the fees will have to go up to keep these schools afloat, either that or the schools either close or go back into the state system.

1) I'm not sure it's as simple as this. A friend of mine teaches in a private fee-paying school and never has to stand in front of a class of 30, as I regularly do. So things cannot be be all that tough in the private school sector in respect of the PTR.

2) My friend's school (not in Dublin either by the way) had enough disposable income to send its rugby team to Spain for a week's training this year, so I'm not sure 'staying afloat' has quite the urgency the term might normally imply. Many of these schools have plenty of extra money I'd suspect.

Powerhouse

hfallada wrote: »

Wasn't there even a court case a few years ago that since teachers in private schools are employed by the school and not DoE the school can decedide the level of pay resulting in a lower cost to the tax payer.

I'm not sure about that court case, but for the record I teach in a state school and the employer is my school not the DoE. I'd be surprised if there's a Post-Primary teacher in the country whose employer is the Department of Education.

But you have hit on the nub of the issue - private schools don't decide their own salaries because they are paid by the Department of Education and not by the school, even though it is the employer.

And your suggestion that these schools could pay lower salaries thereby doing the taxpayer yet another service is very nice in theory. Only problem is that assuming fairly normal employment conditions would it not be a reality that a private school offering significantly less than the state sector might have problems attracting staff?

ejak1

Powerhouse wrote: »

I'm not sure about that court case, but for the record I teach in a state school and the employer is my school not the DoE. I'd be surprised if there's a Post-Primary teacher in the country whose employer is the Department of Education.

But you have hit on the nub of the issue - private schools don't decide their own salaries because they are paid by the Department of Education and not by the school, even though it is the employer.

And your suggestion that these schools could pay lower salaries thereby doing the taxpayer yet another service is very nice in theory. Only problem is that assuming fairly normal employment conditions would it not be a reality that a private school offering significantly less than the state sector might have problems attracting staff?

Many fee-paying schools employ teachers privately out of their own funds, not the Department's. For example, I worked in a fee-paying school where some staff were paid by the DES on the 19:1 and the rest were employed privately by the school. These staff members were employed by the BOM to keep the class sizes low. When they became eligible for CIDs, they were granted these by their employer, in this case the Board of Management, not the Department. The employer also paid their wages. When I taught there some years, the salary of teachers was decided by the BOM, not the Dept. Now, I think the Board follows Department scales for paying its teachers.

steddyeddy

New report says that private schools have an average of 1.5 million extra to spend on pupils each year.

Ireland's 55 private secondaryFEE-paying schools here have an average of €1.5m each to spend a year on extras for their pupils, a Department of Education report has revealed.


schools can use the money to recruit more teachers and other staff, lay on extra-curricular activities and build facilities.
Because the sum is an average, it's been revealed some of the fee-paying schools have much more than the €1.5m discretionary spending – one large school has €4.7m to spend a year.
At the other end of the scale, a relatively small private school has €112,000.
In total, the sector enjoys an €81m revenue boost over and above that available to similarly sized schools in the free education scheme.
Because of its confidential nature, the report does not identify any schools, but it reveals that nine charging in excess of €6,000 a year have an average €2.2m in discretionary income.
At the lowest fee level category, there are seven schools charging €2,500-€3,000, with an average discretionary income of €696,000.
Overall, two-thirds of schools have in excess of €1m a year, while more than a quarter have over €2m to spare.
The additional funding works out at an average of €3,177 per student over and above what a similar sized school in the free education scheme has to spend.
If the average school was to use the money to employ extra teachers, it would allow for about 20 additional staff.
Education Minister Ruairi Quinn sought the report to guide future policy decisions about the extent of state funding to fee-charging schools. A spokesperson for Mr Quinn said the purpose of releasing it now was to inform debate on the issue.
The latest revelations will ignite the debate about withdrawing the state subvention for fee-paying schools. Labour TD for Dublin South West Eamon Moloney reacted immediately and said the "bailout" of fee-paying schools must end.
"Parents who wish to avail of private schools are entitled to do so, but the taxpayer should not have to subsidise the privileges that private schools offer," he said.
Read More

Powerhouse

ejak1 wrote: »

Many fee-paying schools employ teachers privately out of their own funds, not the Department's. For example, I worked in a fee-paying school where some staff were paid by the DES on the 19:1 and the rest were employed privately by the school. These staff members were employed by the BOM to keep the class sizes low. When they became eligible for CIDs, they were granted these by their employer, in this case the Board of Management, not the Department. The employer also paid their wages. When I taught there some years, the salary of teachers was decided by the BOM, not the Dept. Now, I think the Board follows Department scales for paying its teachers.

Which, with respect, defeats the whole point of your argument does it not? Incidentally state schools occasionally pay teachers from the schools' own funds too, but like the cases you mention (you don't give figures but I imagine it's a very low percentage of teachers in your school paid by the school*), it is very rare - usually (in my experience) to provide a minority subject for example. But it is not common enought to depict it as the norm.

* If this is not the case it strenghens the argument that these schools are well capable of surviving using a genuinely private business model, asnd wouldn't need to go running to the state sector.

Inspector Coptoor

"Running" to the state sector.

What is that implying?

A lot of teachers are paid by school funds.

A private school with 1000 students has state funding for 47 teachers at present - this will drop to 43.5 or so in Septembet.

School funded teachers could be anything between 10-20 full teaching posts.

Powerhouse

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

"Running" to the state sector.

What is that implying?

It is implying rather quick movement from the fee-paying sector to the non fee-paying sector I would have thought.

That said, if there are up to 20 full-time teachers - as you say, paid by the schools themselves and they have the resources to do so then there seems to be little fear of them in relation to the PTR. The rest of the schools have to live with the PTR as handed down. We don't have those sort of deep pockets to be able to counteract it if required.

ejak1

Powerhouse wrote: »

Which, with respect, defeats the whole point of your argument does it not? Incidentally state schools occasionally pay teachers from the schools' own funds too, but like the cases you mention (you don't give figures but I imagine it's a very low percentage of teachers in your school paid by the school*), it is very rare - usually (in my experience) to provide a minority subject for example. But it is not common enought to depict it as the norm.

* If this is not the case it strenghens the argument that these schools are well capable of surviving using a genuinely private business model, asnd wouldn't need to go running to the state sector.

Hi. I think you may be confusing me with another poster. I am not actually making any argument, just stating a fact based on my own experience of working in a private fee paying school. I was saying that a lot of teachers in this one school were paid by the school, not just one or two. It could have been as many as one third if not more, many on very low hours. In order to keep class sizes low, the school decided to split classes of thirty into two classes of 15 and paid for the extra teachers out of their own funds, based on Department rates per hour, but not paid by the department. I am aware that teachers are paid privately in non-fee paying schools, as I work in one now, but not up to one third of the staff, as was the case in the fee-paying school. Privately paid teachers, often on very low hours, offer greater subject choice and smaller class sizes than non fee-paying schools.

Powerhouse

ejak1 wrote: »

Hi. I think you may be confusing me with another poster.

No I wasn't confusing you with anyone else. You made the point that the (fee-paying)school, at one time, paid people according to its own pay standards, ("When I taught there some years, the salary of teachers was decided by the BOM, not the Dept."), but then at the end acknowledged that it now did so accoridng to the Department's payscales. ("Now, I think the Board follows Department scales for paying its teachers.")

I just didn't see the relevance of the point if the schools no longer do so, that's all. Schools did many things in the past that they no longer do.

Inspector Coptoor

Would you agree that this Ruairi Quinn driven agenda to raise the PTR on private schools is causing extreme headaches for management teams in the 55 private schools?

Every year, they are now faced with the prospect of losing state paid teachers though redeployment etc.

up to 4 teachers at an average €50k a year including pension etc - that's a llot of money to have to pay out of school funds when heretofore it was paid by the State.

It's making planning very difficult for schools as their numbers are changing all the time.

ejak1

Powerhouse wrote: »

ejak1 wrote: »

Hi. I think you may be confusing me with another poster.

No I wasn't confusing you with anyone else. You made the point that the (fee-paying)school, at one time, paid people according to its own pay standards, ("When I taught there some years, the salary of teachers was decided by the BOM, not the Dept."), but then at the end acknowledged that it now did so accoridng to the Department's payscales. ("Now, I think the Board follows Department scales for paying its teachers.")

I just didn't see the relevance of the point if the schools no longer do so, that's all. Schools did many things in the past that they no longer do.

In my original post I highlighted the fact that a large proportion of staff members may be employed privately by fee-paying schools, not just one or two. In a school I worked in, up to one third of the staff were employed by the school out of its own funds. Currently, in the same school, up to one third are still employed privately by the school. The practice hasn't discontinued. However, the privately employed teachers are now paid according to the standardised Dept payscale, not by the Dept itself. The school has not discontinued the practice of employing a significant number of privately paid teachers The number of part-timers are quite significant as they are on low hours and teaching minority subjects.

Powerhouse

ejak1 wrote: »

Powerhouse wrote: »

ejak1 wrote: »

Hi. I think you may be confusing me with another poster.

In my original post I highlighted the fact that a large proportion of staff members may be employed privately by fee-paying schools, not just one or two. In a school I worked in, up to one third of the staff were employed by the school out of its own funds. Currently, in the same school, up to one third are still employed privately by the school. The practice hasn't discontinued. However, the privately employed teachers are now paid according to the standardised Dept payscale, not by the Dept itself. The school has not discontinued the practice of employing a significant number of privately paid teachers The number of part-timers are quite significant as they are on low hours and teaching minority subjects.

There is no issue here.

I never said the practice of schools (whether state-sector or 'private') employing people had ceased. I know a few schools - none of them private - who pay teachers to provide classes in the evening or after school, and/or teach a minority subject. I even taught occasionally in one of them myself. But I was paid the going rate as per the Dept.

The only thing I thought odd was that schools employed full-time teachers on salary-scales different from what the Dept of Ed. pays. That has nothing to do with a school paying teachers from their own resources.

I have said nothing to contradict you.

Powerhouse

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Would you agree that this Ruairi Quinn driven agenda to raise the PTR on private schools is causing extreme headaches for management teams in the 55 private schools?

Every year, they are now faced with the prospect of losing state paid teachers though redeployment etc.

up to 4 teachers at an average €50k a year including pension etc - that's a llot of money to have to pay out of school funds when heretofore it was paid by the State.

It's making planning very difficult for schools as their numbers are changing all the time.

Do cutbacks cause extreme headaches for Principals? Yes, but I might say welcome to the real world. Many state schools have had to cut subjects and teachers over the years. My daughter does not have the same options in her school that she would have had a few years back because there are less teachers available now.

It is still likely that these fee-paying schools will continue to enjoy the advantages of low class numbers and lack of students from difficult backgrounds, so I would imagine there are Principals out there with bigger headaches than those of the average fee-paying school. In a sense the extra pressure being put on the fee-paying schools is merely positive discrimination - an attempt to level a naturally uneven playing field, and put the burden on those who have room to handle it better than schools already in great difficulty day to day.

RainyDay

teacherhead wrote: »

Should the state pay the wages of teachers in Grind schools like the institute of education?

Should the State also start paying the wages of doctors and nurses in Blackrock Clinic and the Beacon? If the state pays the basic cost of private education, then presumably it should pay the basic cost of private healthcare too?

ejak1

Powerhouse wrote: »

ejak1 wrote: »

Powerhouse wrote: »

There is no issue here.

I never said the practice of schools (whether state-sector or 'private') employing people had ceased. I know a few schools - none of them private - who pay teachers to provide classes in the evening or after school, and/or teach a minority subject. I even taught occasionally in one of them myself. But I was paid the going rate as per the Dept.

The only thing I thought odd was that schools employed full-time teachers on salary-scales different from what the Dept of Ed. pays. That has nothing to do with a school paying teachers from their own resources.

I have said nothing to contradict you.

I just wanted to clarify in response to a statement you made in one of your earlier posts '(you don't give figures but I imagine it's a very low percentage of teachers in your school paid by the school*), ' that it fact it is not a low percentage of teachers paid by the school I was in. As I and other posters have pointed out, quite a sizeable number of teachers can be employed by the school privately. I was just speaking from my own experience. Furthermore, it may be odd that the schools were paying a different rate to me and other privately paid teacheres, but they are private employers, so they don't have to pay department rates, or didn't when I worked there. Maybe that has changed now by law. I'm not sure what the position is legally. Maybe somebody can let us know.

seamus

RainyDay wrote: »

Should the State also start paying the wages of doctors and nurses in Blackrock Clinic and the Beacon? If the state pays the basic cost of private education, then presumably it should pay the basic cost of private healthcare too?

It's not actually an entirely ridiculous suggestion.

If the state covered the basic staffing cost of healthcare across the spectrum, then the cost of private healthcare will drop and therefore so too will the cost of private health insurance. This means that more families will be able to afford insurance and therefore will attend private clinics, relieving the stress on our collapsed and failed public system.

Will it save money? That's something the sums would need to work out.

In relation to private schools, the principle is similar. 55,000 students are being covered at present by a €100m subvention. This is about €1,800 per student, per year.

Remove that subvention and each school must raise its tuition fees by that amount. Probably a little more to cover admin costs. For many private schools this amounts to a 50% fee increase. Many, if not most, parents would not have the funds to cover this. Contrary to popular belief, private schools aren't populated with the children of the elite super-rich. The majority are children of middle-class homes where the tuition fees for a single child are 2 - 5% of the household after tax income. Throw in multiple children and you're talking anything from €6k to €20k on schooling alone.

Increase that cost by 50% overnight and you'll find the public school system getting an influx of 20,000-plus new students in September. How much would it cost the state to provide places for 20,000 new students in September?

Powerhouse

ejak1 wrote: »

As I and other posters have pointed out, quite a sizeable number of teachers can be employed by the school privately.

Yes, I was one of those posters myself. There has never been any question about schools' rights and ability to employ (and pay) teachers privately. I'm still not sure why this remains an issue.

The only thing I wondered was the number of teachers which in the case you mention suggests a school awash with money if it can pay a third of the teachers privately. But this, presumably, varies significantly from school to school.

Powerhouse

seamus wrote: »

Contrary to popular belief, private schools aren't populated with the children of the elite super-rich. The majority are children of middle-class homes where the tuition fees for a single child are 2 - 5% of the household after tax income. Throw in multiple children and you're talking anything from €6k to €20k on schooling alone.

Actually, relatively speaking private schools are populated with the children of the elite super-rich. They may not feel super-rich or regard themsleves as super-rich compared to those they consider their peers but by their deeds they shall be known. There are children in my school (and it's wouldn't be in what would be popularly considered a super-poor area) who struggle to pay for a new pair of shoes when their existing pair gives up the ghost.

Anyone who can afford to pay - at your extreme end - €20k per year, which works out at €400 per week, or €1,600 per month, for a service which is available essentially for free down the road is, by the standards which obtain outside the middle-class bubble many people live in, operating in a situation of extraordinary largesse.

There's a strong whiff of Padraig Flynn's 'you-should-try-it-some-time' attitude to what you write.

Powerhouse

seamus wrote: »

It's not actually an entirely ridiculous suggestion.

If the state covered the basic staffing cost of healthcare across the spectrum, then the cost of private healthcare will drop and therefore so too will the cost of private health insurance. This means that more families will be able to afford insurance and therefore will attend private clinics, relieving the stress on our collapsed and failed public system.

Why would a private business/hospital charge less to people simply because the state pays its staff? Presumably if it could get the same business at the same price anyway it would maintain prices and simply make more profit, which is the whole point of private business is it not? Only in the very rare circumstances of perfect competition is price as sensitive as you suggest.

RainyDay

seamus wrote: »

It's not actually an entirely ridiculous suggestion.

If the state covered the basic staffing cost of healthcare across the spectrum, then the cost of private healthcare will drop and therefore so too will the cost of private health insurance. This means that more families will be able to afford insurance and therefore will attend private clinics, relieving the stress on our collapsed and failed public system.

Will it save money? That's something the sums would need to work out.

I'm confused. How could paying out extra billions in wages save us money?

seamus

Powerhouse wrote: »

Why would a private business/hospital charge less to people simply because the state pays its staff? Presumably if it could get the same business at the same price anyway it would maintain prices and simply make more profit, which is the whole point of private business is it not? Only in the very rare circumstances of perfect competition is price as sensitive as you suggest.

Because charging less can often make you more money. Simple economics. The prices that private hospitals currently charge are based on what the market can afford versus what it costs to provide the service.

Let's say for the sake of example that staff costs for a private hospital make up 30% of your bill.

If the government covered this, the cost to the hospital drops by 30%. If they instantly cover that gap by increasing their bills, their profits may increase by 30%, but their customer base won't. Instead they would be more likely to increase their prices by 10% - meaning they make a bigger profit on existing customers, but also causing a 20% reduction in their overall prices and encouraging even more customers.

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm confused. How could paying out extra billions in wages save us money?

I didn't say "extra billions", but I've painted the case above. Whether it would actually work is a matter that would have to be worked out on paper, but the theory is sound.

Simple fact of the matter is that the cost to the state to educate 55,000 pupils would be around €200m. We presently pay €100m for it. Looks like a bargain to me.

The notion of removing this payment whiffs of begrudgery to me, tbh. The figures speak for themselves. So far nobody has been able to show how removing this funding would save the State money.

Powerhouse

seamus wrote: »

Because charging less can often make you more money. Simple economics. The prices that private hospitals currently charge are based on what the market can afford versus what it costs to provide the service.

Let's say for the sake of example that staff costs for a private hospital make up 30% of your bill.

If the government covered this, the cost to the hospital drops by 30%. If they instantly cover that gap by increasing their bills, their profits may increase by 30%, but their customer base won't. Instead they would be more likely to increase their prices by 10% - meaning they make a bigger profit on existing customers, but also causing a 20% reduction in their overall prices and encouraging even more customers.

This is based on the counter-factual assumption that hospitals have a need to attract more customers as if it's the local sweet shop or a cable television service. These hospitals are normally packed out the door and would be extremely unlikely to indulge in tricking around with price. There's also the fact that people tend not to decide to be sick purely because the local hospital has a special offer.

Like you say "the prices that private hospitals currently charge are based on what the market can afford versus what it costs to provide the service" - why should that change irrespective who's paying the staff?

RainyDay

seamus wrote: »

Because charging less can often make you more money. Simple economics. The prices that private hospitals currently charge are based on what the market can afford versus what it costs to provide the service.

Let's say for the sake of example that staff costs for a private hospital make up 30% of your bill.

If the government covered this, the cost to the hospital drops by 30%. If they instantly cover that gap by increasing their bills, their profits may increase by 30%, but their customer base won't. Instead they would be more likely to increase their prices by 10% - meaning they make a bigger profit on existing customers, but also causing a 20% reduction in their overall prices and encouraging even more customers.

The ludicrous proposal of the State paying extra salaries has no impact on this scenario. If they can make extra profit by reducing their prices, they can do that now, without waiting for state intervention.

seamus wrote: »

I didn't say "extra billions", but I've painted the case above. Whether it would actually work is a matter that would have to be worked out on paper, but the theory is sound.

I don't see any cost saving in the case you painted above.

seamus wrote: »

Simple fact of the matter is that the cost to the state to educate 55,000 pupils would be around €200m. We presently pay €100m for it. Looks like a bargain to me.

The notion of removing this payment whiffs of begrudgery to me, tbh. The figures speak for themselves. So far nobody has been able to show how removing this funding would save the State money.

The saving will arise because the cost won't fall back on the State. A significant number these parents will run a mile from the prospect of their little darlings having to 'slum it' in a public school. They will bear the entire cost of their children's education, once the State calls their bluff. Private education will become even more exclusive, and even more under religious control, as is the case in the UK and Germany.

seamus

Powerhouse wrote: »

This is based on the counter-factual assumption that hospitals have a need to attract more customers as if it's the local sweet shop or a cable television service. These hospitals are normally packed out the door and would be extremely unlikely to indulge in tricking around with price. There's also the fact that people tend not to decide to be sick purely because the local hospital has a special offer.

So you don't see private hospitals and private insurers advertising? Oh wait, you do.
Your assumption is based on the "counter-factual" idea that all medical services are emergency ones.
When it comes to non-emergency medical care (the bulk of medical care), people do indeed shop around and make choices based on cost. This is especially true when it comes to insurance.
Hospitals would reduce their prices if the costs reduced because that's simple economics. In turn, insurers would reduce their prices in order to attract more customers.

RainyDay wrote: »

I don't see any cost saving in the case you painted above.

More patients in the private system == less costs for the Government. If this saving is greater than the cost of paying private doctors, then the state wins. It's very simple. I'm not saying it would work, but it could. It works in the private school system.

The saving will arise because the cost won't fall back on the State. A significant number these parents will run a mile from the prospect of their little darlings having to 'slum it' in a public school. They will bear the entire cost of their children's education, once the State calls their bluff.

Ah I see, so it is just plain old begrudgery.
It never occurs to you that many parents choose fee-paying schools based on factors that have nothing to do with snobbery?

Powerhouse

seamus wrote: »

So you don't see private hospitals and private insurers advertising? Oh wait, you do.

Wait, I do, indeed. You are assuming that advertising is some kind of suggestion that hospitals are less than busy. Much advertising is about brand building. I rarely if ever hear a private hospital advertisig that they they are knocking out hysterectomies for €399.99.

"Your assumption is based on the "counter-factual" idea that all medical services are emergency ones."

What assumption? The only assumption I made is that private hospitals are very busy which from what I hear about waiting lists seems reasonable. I didn't assume all medical procedures are emergencies. Perhaps the point was made too obliquely for you but my point was that I suspect the average person deals with private hospitals through their medical insurance and is quite unaware of costs involved relative to other hospitals. Whether procedures are elective or emergency is neither here nor there really.

Perhaps you have specialist knowledge that overturns this?

Powerhouse

seamus wrote: »

Ah I see, so it is just plain old begrudgery.
It never occurs to you that many parents choose fee-paying schools based on factors that have nothing to do with snobbery?

In fairness to the other poster they did say 'a significant number' of parents which presumably leaves room too for your 'many' parents? It's not a zero-sum game.

GavMan

Cutting through the class divide rhetoric in this thread, the only one talking any real sense is Seamus.

If you zeroised state funding into fee paying schools, you would overnight move the majority of those 55000 students into the Public system.

The only solution would be to nationalise (effectively) some of those institutions and pay the full cost of running them. Outside of the maintaining the PTR, you're talking about adding in maintenance, admin costs, insurance, etc.

The simple fact of the matter (and I've worked in a non-teaching role in a private school), about 3/4's of families sending their kids to the school I worked in we're good intentioned, middle-class parents, working 2 jobs, family income of a little bit more than the average industrial wage, not taking foreign holidays every year, no new wardrobe every season, no new cars every 5 years (nevermind every couple of years), VERY little eating out, outside of family occasions.

Yes, it must note that some families are very wealthy people and could afford the doubling of fees overnight. However, let me assure you, they are few and far between.

TBH, you get the same kind of impassioned nonsense when it comes to religious patronage of schools. The fact of the matter is, if orders pulled out tomorrow, it would be a very tricky situation. Especially at primary level...


TL;DR...don't throw the baby out with the bath water

Inspector Coptoor

Lets be clear.

This is a personal & hypocritical crusade by Ruairi Quinn, who was privately educated himself & who has sent his own kids to private school.

I work in a private school at the moment.
Average class size Is already 28 at Junior Cycle.
A lot of the parents are already struggling to pay fees as this government keeps attacking net pay.

Hoboo

Gavman summed it up perfectly.

RainyDay

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

I work in a private school at the moment.
Average class size Is already 28 at Junior Cycle.
A lot of the parents are already struggling to pay fees as this government keeps attacking net pay.

It's ironic that many public schools now have better class sizes than their private counterparts.

seamus wrote: »

More patients in the private system == less costs for the Government. If this saving is greater than the cost of paying private doctors, then the state wins. It's very simple. I'm not saying it would work, but it could. It works in the private school system.

That's a very simplistic analysis, that ignores the pent-up demand in the form of large waiting lists in the public system. Even if a significant number of public customers moved over to the private sector, there are many more in the waiting list to take their place. So the costs stay the same.

seamus wrote: »

Ah I see, so it is just plain old begrudgery.
It never occurs to you that many parents choose fee-paying schools based on factors that have nothing to do with snobbery?

You're right, it is more than just snobbery. Racism plays a part too, as does obsession with rugby (in south Dublin at least).

But really, the reasons are fairly irrelevant - the real question is now many will pay the full economic cost when the State calls their bluff.

steddyeddy

People are bringing up the notion that it saves the state money. Its true private schools do save the state money. The issue being missed is that some taxpayers are contributing to private schools yet be excluded from entry based on his or her income.

Inspector Coptoor

I was "denied" entry to a better school growing up on the basis I wasn't female.

I was "denied" access to better schools than the one I went to on the basis I lived far away from these schools.

That argument is weak.

steddyeddy

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

I was "denied" entry to a better school growing up on the basis I wasn't female.

I was "denied" access to better schools than the one I went to on the basis I lived far away from these schools.

That argument is weak.

Well it’s not really. Especially considering your argument which compares single sex schools and schools that are far away too fee paying schools. Fee paying schools offer a smaller class size and more subjects based on the circumstance which a child may be born into.

I would take issue with the use of choice in this thread and others dealing with the same topic. It is the child who ultimately benefits from education. He or she has no choice as to which school he can go to, he/she are limited by the environment they are born into. So the environment they are born into ultimately decides what type of education they receive. Parental choice is also mentioned as a reason these kids are in private school. While I agree that most people who attend private school are not rich they are certainly better off than those who can’t afford it. Many parents can’t afford it because they have a low paying career, many have a low paying career because they had a poor education, and many had a poor education because their parents couldn’t afford to send them to private school. This sacred choice that people go on about is semi mythical. People are born into circumstance that dictates choice.
On the issue of class distinction, in my undergraduate years I have certainly heard obnoxious “class” based comments from people who have went to one of the most “elite” private schools. These were however in the vast, vast minority of private school goers.

Powerhouse

GavMan wrote: »

If you zeroised state funding into fee paying schools, you would overnight move the majority of those 55000 students into the Public system.

This seems to be the argument of last resort in this debate. But what evidence is there (a) that fees would rise significantly? Might there not be a possibility that many such schools are already very comfortable and could absorb a lot of the impact with an eye on not pricing themselevs out of the market? Might they not just have to adjust their realities a little instead in the same way that state schools have had to do over the years? For example in my school players on sports teams donate to pay for the bus themselves; (b) that there would be a consequent mass exodus? and (c) that this would necessarily be a bad thing? There seems to be an awful lot of guesswork and assumption going on here.

The state provides education for huge numbers of people - I suspect it could do so for more if it had to. Maybe it should get more credit for doing so. I suspect there are many state schools out there which could take on an extra 50 students at least without adding enormously to its costs. I know my school took in 40 extra First Years last year and the world did not stop turning on its axis.

Incidentally, are there really 55,000 students attending fee-paying schools? Someone else mentioned that there are 55 such schools in the country. That means that an average 1,000 students attend each fee-paying schools? That's a remarkable situation assuming both figures are accuate.

Powerhouse

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

That argument is weak.

That depends on your attitude to equality and the role education should play in it. For people who believe in an equal society it is a powerful argument. The ultimate question is why should tax-payers fund a scenario which cements inequality and unequal opportunity.

To suggest that, for example, single-sex schools or the vagaries of geographical location are analagous to the scenario played out in the public/private school debate is risible.

seavill

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Lets be clear.

This is a personal & hypocritical crusade by Ruairi Quinn, who was privately educated himself & who has sent his own kids to private school.

I work in a private school at the moment.
Average class size Is already 28 at Junior Cycle.
A lot of the parents are already struggling to pay fees as this government keeps attacking net pay.

I work in a "public" school the class sizes in 1st, 2nd and 3rd year are all 4 classes of 30/31 currently.

joebloggs32

seavill wrote: »

I work in a "public" school the class sizes in 1st, 2nd and 3rd year are all 4 classes of 30/31 currently.

This is exactly why people will pay to send their children to the private schools, with our taxes subsidising the privileged.

Inspector Coptoor

You're not getting it.

Yes, there is a subsidy but its half of what it would cost the state if these schools were public.

The parents of students in private schools are tax payers too, in many cases, they pay an awful lot of tax.

Why shouldn't their taxes go to part fund their children's education?

Miss Lockhart

For me cost to the state is not the primary concern. The government subsidising privilege is.

Ideally I would prefer if parents could not buy any educational advantage for their children. Not going to happen, but this would be a step in the right direction.

Inspector Coptoor

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

For me cost to the state is not the primary concern. The government subsidising privilege is.

Ideally I would prefer if parents could not buy any educational advantage for their children. Not going to happen, but this would be a step in the right direction.

I'm with you on that one.
I wish every school in this country had great facilities & that prefabs weren't the norm in any school.

However, until such time as all schools in this country are all up to a decent standard (& by that I mean standard of buildings & facilities), there will always be a market for "educational advantage".

How big that market will be 3-5 years from now remains to be seen.