State Funding for private schools.

Miss Lockhart

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

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.

Even if government non fee paying schools were all A1 many would seek to segregate their children.

Everything you say is true. But it doesn't change my opinion that educational advantage should not be able to be bought and at the very least those who seek to buy it should bear the full costs.

Inspector Coptoor

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Even if government non fee paying schools were all A1 many would seek to segregate their children.

Everything you say is true. But it doesn't change my opinion that educational advantage should not be able to be bought and at the very least those who seek to buy it should bear the full costs.

That's fine.

I can see where you are coming from & I probably had the same opinion until I started working in the private sector around 3 years ago.

I now see a very different side to the coin.

evolving_doors

joebloggs32 wrote: »

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

First point, there is a cut off amount to which people can pay. For fee charging schools to exist solely by private means I would imagine that the fees would have to be in the region of at least 20 to 30K (going by the fees for uk 'private' schools). You aint gonna get all of those parents to pay that, so conversely only the uber rich would be able to afford it,, and if you're paying 20+k for fees in a private school you'd want to be damn sure that you're getting a fair whack of 'privelege' for your money.

I live in a working class area and to be honest I've seen people who would earn a reasonable wage from a trade piss it away down at the pub and bookies every week, take a foreign holiday every year, spend a fortune on communions etc and drive fairly flash cars. As things stand the majority of student's parents are not that well off and privileged to the extent that the media would have you believe, i.e. forego foreign holidays, new cars, extra curricular tuition (music lessons etc) to send their kids to a fee charging school. I do believe that these parents still make sacrifices to get their kids this type of education. If the fees were to increase I reckon this would have a significant impact on the intake in these schools.


funny then that if such fee charging schools were to go public you'd be subsidising the so-called privileged' to an even greater extent.. Have a look at the recent school in kilkenny which went public.. the privately paid teachers were switched over to the public system, and the principal also commented that because of the more favourable PTR they actually took on more teachers!! + The capitations grant which they never got before...

In saying all that though (here's where I talk out the other side of my face) I went to a school in a rural area where no matter how rich or poor you were you went to the local school down the road, nobody gave a whizz really and I do believe the social mix opened my mind a bit more than if I were in a fee charging school. It's only since I moved to Dublin and had kids that I realise that it's all about the bloody schools. I find it has segregated society (in dublin anyway) like the Catholic/Protestant mindset up the north, when two people meet it's buried in their psyche to suss out what school they went to.

Financially, I think the argument for abolishing fee paying schools on the grounds of saving money (for the much trotted out 'taxpayer' ) is flawed.

Socially, I think we should all be mixed together but where there's choice and demand there's going to be some degree of unfairness no matter what

steddyeddy

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

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?

You're not getting it. You keep mentioning cost, cost and cost. I agree with you regarding the expense involved, it would be cheaper but it is wrong for the taxpayer to fund the privileged education of other people's children. An education that will give other children an advantage over their own.

I'm passionate about education. I think that education should be equal across the board wherever possible. I don't think the circumstances you are born into should dictate the quality of school education you receive.

GavMan

Quick bit of googling tells me there are 26000 students in private education. I stand corrected on that

Powerhouse

Armelodie wrote: »

First point, there is a cut off amount to which people can pay. For fee charging schools to exist solely by private means I would imagine that the fees would have to be in the region of at least 20 to 30K (going by the fees for uk 'private' schools). You aint gonna get all of those parents to pay that, so conversely only the uber rich would be able to afford it,, and if you're paying 20+k for fees in a private school you'd want to be damn sure that you're getting a fair whack of 'privelege' for your money.

What this really means is that there is a cut-off amount which people like us can pay. In reality there is a cut-off point already there for thousands upon thousands of parents. That is rarely mentioned because discussion boards and fora like this are probably dominated by middle-class people.

It's a remarkable double-standard how some think people being marginalised in a scenario where they cannot afford €20k for education is undesirable but other people being marginalised because they cannot afford €4k or €5k for education is grand - just one of those things in life.

steddyeddy

A the pin of their collar seems to have different meanings depending on who you talk too. I can asure people that people who have to sacrifice a holiday and new car to pay for private school are better off than people who can't afford a car or holiday at all. Private schools don't bother me as much as the comments made by people who go to them. Comments such as parents of people who are educated privately care more, people in private schools work just as hard to get to college as those born into disadvantage or every parent makes a "choice".

eyescreamcone

I think that the state should subsidise ALL children equally (equal financial amounts)...

And if some people want to top up this money with some of their own (by sending their children to a fee paying school) then let them.

If some people prefer to send their children to non fee paying schools, and spend their disposable income in a different manner, then let them do that too..

All the talk about privilige etc is bullsh!t in my opinion.

RainyDay

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I think that the state should subsidise ALL children equally (equal financial amounts)...

And if some people want to top up this money with some of their own (by sending their children to a fee paying school) then let them.

If some people prefer to send their children to non fee paying schools, and spend their disposable income in a different manner, then let them do that too..

All the talk about privilige etc is bullsh!t in my opinion.

And what about those parents who don't have the extra disposable income, because their parents never had the extra disposable income to send them to the private schooling that opens up access to high earning professions?

Anyway, I'm sure the parents of these goys must be so proud;
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-train-services-disrupted-by-drunken-incidents-in-wake-of-schools-rugby-match-1.1331596

steddyeddy

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I think that the state should subsidise ALL children equally (equal financial amounts)...

And if some people want to top up this money with some of their own (by sending their children to a fee paying school) then let them.

If some people prefer to send their children to non fee paying schools, and spend their disposable income in a different manner, then let them do that too..

All the talk about privilige etc is bullsh!t in my opinion.

Here's a basic tenant of life for you: not all people have disposable income. It's not a matter of paying for private schools for the kids or getting locked every night.

pwurple

steddyeddy wrote: »

. I agree with you regarding the expense involved, it would be cheaper but it is wrong for the taxpayer to fund the privileged education of other people's children. An education that will give other children an advantage over their own..

I think a privileged education is one where parents take the time at home to go through the homework with their children, and read to them when they are young, and bring them to interesting educational places outside of school. THAT is privilege. It costs absolutly nothing.

Fee paying schools were historically protestant, simply because the protestant population was diverse, and a lot of the children had to board (as the schools were so far from home). Our bigotted little nation still has an anti-protestant hangover that associates these schools with their own giant shoulder chip.

Some people don't like the accents that the fee paying school kids have. Some people don't like the posh uniforms. Some people don't realise that for every snobby plonker kid in there, who's daddy runs KPMG, there's another ordinary kid. Just the same as in every school with dossing car-smashing plonker students, there are ordinary middle of the road students.

A good chunk of parents will climb over hot coals to get their children ahead of their peers. I know my parents did. Not by sending us to fee paying schools (because they couldn't afford it), but by taking us on camping trips at the weekend, and joining the local library.

Life is a competition. Leaving cert, job interviews, finding a partner, promotions at work. It's all about being better than your peers in some way. Standing out from the crowd.

What's fair is providing the same funding to every school based on their students. If people want to top it up either with grinds, or a fee paying school, then let them.

RainyDay

pwurple wrote: »

What's fair is providing the same funding to every school based on their students. If people want to top it up either with grinds, or a fee paying school, then let them.

And same for healthcare - right? The State should pay for the basic service in Blackrock Clinic for everybody - right? And same for transport - if I choose not to use buses or trains, the State should pay for the basic cost of my private car - right?

eyescreamcone

steddyeddy wrote: »

Here's a basic tenant of life for you: not all people have disposable income. It's not a matter of paying for private schools for the kids or getting locked every night.

So what?
Some people have more disposable income than others and good luck to them.
They should be allowed to spend it as the like.

People with no disposable income receive the standard in healthcare and education from the state.

Some might say that the priviliged are those who receive education, healthcare and housing without putting anything back into the pot themselves.

Miss Lockhart

eyescreamcone wrote: »

So what?
Some people have more disposable income than others and good luck to them.
They should be allowed to spend it as the like.

People with no disposable income receive the standard in healthcare and education from the state.

Some might say that the priviliged are those who receive education, healthcare and housing without putting anything back into the pot themselves.

Some might say that the children being educated shouldn't be losing out purely because their parents don't have, or won't give, money.

Allowing adults to buy privilege with money they have earned is one thing, allowing them to buy privelege for their children who have done no more to deserve it than other children is a whole other ball game - particularly when it is in the field of education which is supposed to be the passport to social mobility. Having the government subsidise this privilege is in my eyes unacceptable.

steddyeddy

eyescreamcone wrote: »

So what?
Some people have more disposable income than others and good luck to them.
They should be allowed to spend it as the like.

People with no disposable income receive the standard in healthcare and education from the state.

Some might say that the priviliged are those who receive education, healthcare and housing without putting anything back into the pot themselves.

I'll reply in full when I'm back home but for the moment I just wanted to query you on Private school children and disposable income. I have met no child who earned money himself to send himself through private college. It was always/usually off the backs of others that he/she was privately educated.

By the way most my friends in college were privately educated. They are nice people and not snobs in the slightest. I don't think their parents did wrong by sending them to private school but I disagree with the system that allows that.

steddyeddy

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Some might say that the children being educated shouldn't be losing out purely because their parents don't have, or won't give, money.

Allowing adults to buy privilege with money they have earned is one thing, allowing them to buy privelege for their children who have done no more to deserve it than other children is a whole other ball game - particularly when it is in the field of education which is supposed to be the passport to social mobility. Having the government subsidise this privilege is in my eyes unacceptable.

BINGO.

Inspector Coptoor

This is getting ridiculous.
The government aren't even subsidizing the "advantage".

If anything, they are getting off by paying less to educate the kids of parents who pay extra to put kids in private schools.

There are many parents all over the country who live in counties where there isn't a single private school, and these parents are paying through the nose to give their kids an educational advantage through grinds & other forms of private education.

The reason for this is that boarding school costs 3-4.5 x the amount it costs to send a student to a private school as a day student.

Are the government taxing these parents further for the "educational advantage" they are giving their kids?

I don't mean to sound overly critical but please do me favour, take off the rose coloured glasses, smell the coffee & realist that we DON'T live in a perfectly utopian & egalitarian society.

steddyeddy

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous.
The government aren't even subsidizing the "advantage".

If anything, they are getting off by paying less to educate the kids of parents who pay extra to put kids in private schools.

There are many parents all over the country who live in counties where there isn't a single private school, and these parents are paying through the nose to give their kids an educational advantage through grinds & other forms of private education.

The reason for this is that boarding school costs 3-4.5 x the amount it costs to send a student to a private school as a day student.

Are the government taxing these parents further for the "educational advantage" they are giving their kids?

I don't mean to sound overly critical but please do me favour, take off the rose coloured glasses, smell the coffee & realist that we DON'T live in a perfectly utopian & egalitarian society.

No we don't live in a perfect society but how well people do in academia should reflect their intelligence not the size of the wallet of their benefactor.

Finland eradicated the majority of private schools and the scores between the rich and poor equalized (as would make sense). I believe that people who work hard should be entitled to earn and spend their money but academia should be related to intelligence alone.

Inspector Coptoor

This is where your argument starts to fall down.

Most schools are not solely about academia.
If go as gas as to say that real academia is found solely in 3rd level.

Schools are about holistic development & one of the main reasons parents decide to spend their net income on sending a child to a private school is due to enhanced holistic development, better facilities, better co-curricular activities, chances to experience an enhanced TY cultural exchange programme etc.

This is not, not has ever been based purely in results & academia

Seanchai

Would people stop calling them "private schools" when they actually mean fee-paying schools? Most schools are "private schools", as in schools which are not owned by the Irish state but are owned by private organisations such as the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Church of Ireland. I teach in a private school, which is also a DEIS school. Needless to say, the students do not pay fees to our private school.

The current situation where private organisations are providing the teaching on private premises to most students in Ireland is unacceptable. Giving the impression that fee-paying schools are the only private schools misrepresents the reality. It's time for state money to be used to fund only state-owned and managed schools and not privately owned schools of any variety, fee paying or not.

evolving_doors

Seanchai wrote: »

Would people stop calling them "private schools" when they actually mean fee-paying schools? Most schools are "private schools", as in schools which are not owned by the Irish state but are owned by private organisations such as the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Church of Ireland. I teach in a private school, which is also a DEIS school. Needless to say, the students do not pay fees to our private school.

The current situation where private organisations are providing the teaching on private premises to most students in Ireland is unacceptable. Giving the impression that fee-paying schools are the only private schools misrepresents the reality. It's time for state money to be used to fund only state-owned and managed schools and not privately owned schools of any variety, fee paying or not.

Actually, the correct grammatical term is 'fee charging school' as the school itself does not pay the fees.

Also , just from looking at legal cases , private schools in Ireland refers to places that run the business solely for profit (i.e. private company) e.g. The Institute of Education..with no monies from the state...

Can't remember the correct term for 'non fee charging public schools' is... Maybe someone can clear that one up.....

joebloggs32

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

This is where your argument starts to fall down.

Most schools are not solely about academia.
If go as gas as to say that real academia is found solely in 3rd level.

Schools are about holistic development & one of the main reasons parents decide to spend their net income on sending a child to a private school is due to enhanced holistic development, better facilities, better co-curricular activities, chances to experience an enhanced TY cultural exchange programme etc.

This is not, not has ever been based purely in results & academia

And why is that fee paying schools can offer these "enhanced" facilities and experiences?.
I really have to laugh when I see the schools rugby supplement in the indo every year. Ther are an some teams with seven or eight coaches, some of whom are brought in at great expense from overseas.
It is the subsidisation of the school by the taxpayer that
enables the fee paying schools to offer these extras



I asked you before,but you failed to answer, should the state subsidise private hospitals in the same way as they are doing in education by paying the wages of their staff

Inspector Coptoor

You didn't ask me actually.

Private hospitals, much like private schools would not exist if the state was ran in a way where proper facilities were the norm.

joebloggs32

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

You didn't ask me actually.

Private hospitals, much like private schools would not exist if the state was ran in a way where proper facilities were the norm.

That still does not answer the question.
Should the state pay the wages of staff in a private hospital in the way that it pays the wages of teachers in a fee paying school?

RainyDay

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Are the government taxing these parents further for the "educational advantage" they are giving their kids?

I don't mean to sound overly critical but please do me favour, take off the rose coloured glasses, smell the coffee & realist that we DON'T live in a perfectly utopian & egalitarian society.

So that makes it OK for the State to further increase inter-generational inequality?

Powerhouse

Seanchai wrote: »

Would people stop calling them "private schools" when they actually mean fee-paying schools? Most schools are "private schools", as in schools which are not owned by the Irish state but are owned by private organisations such as the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Church of Ireland. I teach in a private school, which is also a DEIS school. Needless to say, the students do not pay fees to our private school.

The current situation where private organisations are providing the teaching on private premises to most students in Ireland is unacceptable. Giving the impression that fee-paying schools are the only private schools misrepresents the reality. It's time for state money to be used to fund only state-owned and managed schools and not privately owned schools of any variety, fee paying or not.

Touché, but I think this is dancing on a semantic pin-head to be honest. Whatever about the nomenclature the working distinction is fairly clear in the context of this debate. The matter of getting the religious out of education altogether is another argument.

Powerhouse

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

we DON'T live in a perfectly utopian & egalitarian society.

Indeed. But does that mean that public funding should be used to perpetuate a dystopian and inegalitarian society until 'a perfectly utopian and egalitarian society' thrusts itself upon us. Seems rather self-defeating that. A bit like deciding to eat burgers and chips every night because you're not as fit as Katie Taylor. It's hard to achieve it if we don't go about it.

eyescreamcone

Maybe in this dreamland communist state that you propose we live in, we should ban all grinds too.

This would prevent an unfair advantage to the children who's parents choose to spend their (hard earned) money in this manner.

implausible

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Maybe in this dreamland communist state that you propose we live in, we should ban all grinds too.

This would prevent an unfair advantage to the children whose parents choose to spend their (hard earned) money in this manner.

Grinds are not funded by the taxpayer.

melekalikimaka

if they remove the subsidy its gonna create an even large gap. I support state contributions to private education, we all pay the same tax, we should all reap the same benefits. If I choose to top up that return with my own money I'd don't see the issue. Standard chip on shoulder attitude as usual

eyescreamcone

implausible wrote: »

Grinds are not funded by the taxpayer.

Students in fee paying schools do not receive any more funding from the state than those students who are being taught in the free schools

steddyeddy

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Maybe in this dreamland communist state that you propose we live in, we should ban all grinds too.

This would prevent an unfair advantage to the children who's parents choose to spend their (hard earned) money in this manner.

This always amazes me when people talk about hard earned in relation to private schools. People in private schools don't go there because they have earned that privilege over another student. They go there because they were born into a family that could afford to send them there.



Giving one child an advantage over another in a standardized test is ludicrous. A test that is there for the sole purpose of testing academic ability and suitability for college cannot have massively different resources thrown at one student over another. Even from a scientific viewpoint can you not see the problems with it.

The Pheasant

steddyeddy wrote: »

This always amazes me when people talk about hard earned in relation to private schools. People in private schools don't go there because they have earned that privilege over another student. They go there because they were born into a family that could afford to send them there.



Giving one child an advantage over another in a standardized test is ludicrous. A test that is there for the sole purpose of testing academic ability and suitability for college cannot have massively different resources thrown at one student over another. Even from a scientific viewpoint can you not see the problems with it.

Yes but it's the parents who choose to spend their income on the education of their children. The idea that all people who attend fee paying schools are incredibly wealthy or are from privileged backgrounds is ridiculous, of course some of them are but a huge amount are not - they come from families whose parents want an education better than they had and who often make huge sacrifices in order to get this for their children

steddyeddy

The Pheasant wrote: »

Yes but it's the parents who choose to spend their income on the education of their children. The idea that all people who attend fee paying schools are incredibly wealthy or are from privileged backgrounds is ridiculous, of course some of them are but a huge amount are not - they come from families whose parents want an education better than they had and who often make huge sacrifices in order to get this for their children

Completely agree I never said they were all loaded. I'm just maintaing that not everyone can afford them (unfortunately the people who would benefit most from it). My point remains education is connected with merit in my book. Children do nothing to earn the right to go to a private school.

doc_17

What annoys me the most about private schools is how some of them treat some of their teachers. They regularly hire teachers and pay them privately at below the going rate.

They are just another advantage that the better-off have in this country. Whether that's right or wrong it's just the way it is

implausible

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Students in fee paying schools do not receive any more funding from the state than those students who are being taught in the free schools

The teachers are paid by the state, leaving the fees to be spent on other things than wages. Your analogy with banning grinds makes no sense - all students have to pay for grinds; it's not a case of some students getting grinds for free because the tutor is paid by the state and others paying a top-up fee so they can have a grind in a nicer room.

RainyDay

doc_17 wrote: »

They are just another advantage that the better-off have in this country. Whether that's right or wrong it's just the way it is

It's wrong, and it's long past time for us to change it.

melekalikimaka

RainyDay wrote: »

It's wrong

in YOUR opinion.

milosh

Is there any other OECD country where our anomaly of state subsidised private schools happens? In the UK including Northern Ireland it certainly does not.

Interestingly fee paying primary schools in Ireland don't get funding from the state and most of them survive just fine.

RainyDay

melekalikimaka wrote: »

in YOUR opinion.

In the opinion of anyone who doesn't want to continue to promote intergenerational inequality in Ireland.

The Pheasant

RainyDay wrote: »

In the opinion of anyone who doesn't want to continue to promote intergenerational inequality in Ireland.

And what would you propose? Remove all state funding from private schools? Alright so, in that case private school fees will jump to around 15k annual fees per average day student, and in this case it will only be the mega wealthy who attend them. What about your average family who would spend a good deal of their income on school fees? Their children will go to public schools because ofcourse they can't afford the 15k for private, but what will they do with the 5k that would have originally gone towards school fees? They'll spend it on grinds. And 5k will get a whole lot of grinds for one year. And so the cycle begins again...but what then? Ban grinds too? Ban anything that could prevent these awful people from trying to obtain a better education for their children? I'm sorry but there's always going to be people who spend their money on getting advantages for their children and nothing will stop that

Miss Lockhart

The Pheasant wrote: »

And what would you propose? Remove all state funding from private schools? Alright so, in that case private school fees will jump to around 15k annual fees per average day student, and in this case it will only be the mega wealthy who attend them. What about your average family who would spend a good deal of their income on school fees? Their children will go to public schools because ofcourse they can't afford the 15k for private, but what will they do with the 5k that would have originally gone towards school fees? They'll spend it on grinds. And 5k will get a whole lot of grinds for one year. And so the cycle begins again...but what then? Ban grinds too? Ban anything that could prevent these awful people from trying to obtain a better education for their children? I'm sorry but there's always going to be people who spend their money on getting advantages for their children and nothing will stop that

But at least the government won't be complicit in helping certain individuals gain unmerited educational advantage over others. That's very important.

evolving_doors

milosh wrote: »

Is there any other OECD country where our anomaly of state subsidised private schools happens? In the UK including Northern Ireland it certainly does not.

Interestingly fee paying primary schools in Ireland don't get funding from the state and most of them survive just fine.

What primary schools charge fees? Do they follow the irish curriculum?

melekalikimaka

Armelodie wrote: »

What primary schools charge fees? Do they follow the irish curriculum?

willow park, st conleths, oatlands, john scottus off the top of my head and yes they do

RainyDay

The Pheasant wrote: »

And what would you propose? Remove all state funding from private schools? Alright so, in that case private school fees will jump to around 15k annual fees per average day student, and in this case it will only be the mega wealthy who attend them. What about your average family who would spend a good deal of their income on school fees? Their children will go to public schools because ofcourse they can't afford the 15k for private, but what will they do with the 5k that would have originally gone towards school fees? They'll spend it on grinds. And 5k will get a whole lot of grinds for one year.

I'm not quite sure that I agree with your definition of the 'average family' spending on private school fees, but regardless, you need to look at the big picture, beyond the dollar signs. People will only spend on grinds if they need to spend on grinds. If pupils get a decent education in the mainstream public school system that maximises their potential, there will be no need for grinds, and grinds will become pointless and self-defeating.

The main impact of public schools becoming the 'standard choice' for the majority of the population, as is the case in the UK, is that expectations will rise for public schools. The involvement of committed parents on Parents Associations and Boards of Management will improve these schools over time. School standards will improve, because of increased expectations.

The current situation incentivises large numbers of families to opt-out of public schooling, so school standards drop. Public schools become ghettos. We need to reverse that situation.

chippers

Armelodie wrote: »

What primary schools charge fees? Do they follow the irish curriculum?

Alex in Milltown, Dublin does as well - yes Irish curriculum

steddyeddy

The Pheasant wrote: »

And what would you propose? Remove all state funding from private schools? Alright so, in that case private school fees will jump to around 15k annual fees per average day student, and I
n this case it will only be the mega wealthy who attend them. What about your average family who would spend a good deal of their income on school fees? Their children will go to public schools because ofcourse they can't afford the 15k for private, but what will they do with the 5k that would have originally gone towards school fees? They'll spend it on grinds. And 5k will get a whole lot of grinds for one year. And so the cycle begins again...but what then? Ban grinds too? Ban anything that could prevent these awful people from trying to obtain a better education for their children? I'm sorry but there's always going to be people who spend their money on getting advantages for their children and nothing will stop that

So what if the fees increase and some people can't afford it? You realise that a lot of people can't afford it at the moment? People who work hard and would love for their child to go to a private school.

milosh

Armelodie wrote: »

What primary schools charge fees? Do they follow the irish curriculum?

Aravon in Bray, St Gerards Primary in Bray, St Michaels Primary, CBC Monkstown Primary, St Andrews Primary as well as the other ones mentioned. These are all "independent" schools. They are outside the state system and are therefore not subject to inspections, do not have to follow the state opening days and hours (most don't open in June as far as I know) and do not have to have fully qualified teachers registered with the teaching council. They do not have to follow the state curriculum at primary level but most do.

The fees are generally the same as for their senior schools (from doing a little bit of research) and they get absolutely zero funding from the state, which in my view is the way it should be. I have no problem at all with parents choosing to educate their children in exclusive environments but I believe they should pay the full economic cost of exclusivity. What they are paying for is not a better standard of teaching as implied by the "money would be spent on grinds" argument, but on extra curricular activities (full time rugby/hockey coaches, full time choir master/librarian etc) and not having to mix with the perceived lower classes.

eyescreamcone

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

But at least the government won't be complicit in helping certain individuals gain unmerited educational advantage over others. That's very important.

This statement is bullsh!t!!

The state funds ALL children's education (in fact the state's contribution to the children who attend fee paying schools is less than the state's contribution to those in the free schools)

If parents want the best for their children by...

- topping up the state subsidy with €4000 per year of their own hard earned money
- providing grinds for their children
- or just by providing good nutrition for their children

..then let them do it.

Parents will/should want the best for their children.

Next you'll be giving out that parents shouldn't be passing on good genes to their children as this will give their offspring an unfair advantage.

RealJohn

The Pheasant wrote: »

And what would you propose? Remove all state funding from private schools? Alright so, in that case private school fees will jump to around 15k annual fees per average day student, and in this case it will only be the mega wealthy who attend them. What about your average family who would spend a good deal of their income on school fees? Their children will go to public schools because ofcourse they can't afford the 15k for private, but what will they do with the 5k that would have originally gone towards school fees? They'll spend it on grinds. And 5k will get a whole lot of grinds for one year. And so the cycle begins again...but what then? Ban grinds too? Ban anything that could prevent these awful people from trying to obtain a better education for their children? I'm sorry but there's always going to be people who spend their money on getting advantages for their children and nothing will stop that

You seem to be missing (or willfully ignoring) the point. Of course some parents will be in a position to spend more money on education than others and of course some of them will but that doesn't mean it should be state sponsored. As has been pointed out by others, bring those on the borderline back into the public school system will benefit everyone in the long run because it will in all likelihood raise the overall standard of schooling. If those who can afford 15 grand or more a year to have their kids educated privately, fair enough. I don't actually have any real problem with people getting an educational advantage from going to a private school. It's not ideal but it's unavoidable for many reasons, some of which you've listed yourself. My objection is that the state shouldn't be taking an active part in giving some students an advantage over others and that is the situation at present.