State Funding for private schools.

The Pheasant

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.

But they aren't?
Every child has the human right to an education and hence every child is entitled to recieve a subsidy from the state for that education - it is up to the parents whether they wish to spend the extra 4/5k on educating their children in a fee paying school and if they do, that's their hard earned income and they can spend it as they like.

milosh wrote: »

and not having to mix with the perceived lower classes.

Seriously? Remove the chip from your shoulder...

eyescreamcone

RealJohn wrote: »

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.

The state does not give the student in the fee paying school more than the student in the free school!!!

RainyDay

The Pheasant wrote: »

But they aren't?
Every child has the human right to an education and hence every child is entitled to recieve a subsidy from the state for that education

No they're not. There is no entitlement in law or policy to a 'subsidy'.

Every child is entitled to access a decent education. If they choose to make their own plans for their own education, that's their own business. There is no basis for a state subsidy.

Just as the state doesn't pay the salaries of the Doctors in the Blackrock Clinic, or the taxi drivers in NRC, it shouldn't be paying the salaries of teachers in private schools.

RealJohn

eyescreamcone wrote: »

The state does not give the student in the fee paying school more than the student in the free school!!!

Yes they do. Those same students can attend any public school for no extra fee but they can't turn up at a fee paying school and say "I'm entitled to an education, the government are paying (some of) your teachers so I'm not paying anything extra to attend." The government is making private schools more affordable by paying their teachers but they're still closed to anyone who won't pay the extra so the government are giving those students more by helping them to pay for something many of them wouldn't otherwise be able to afford even though there is a far cheaper option available to them down the road.

eyescreamcone

RealJohn wrote: »

Yes they do. Those same students can attend any public school for no extra fee but they can't turn up at a fee paying school and say "I'm entitled to an education, the government are paying (some of) your teachers so I'm not paying anything extra to attend." The government is making private schools more affordable by paying their teachers but they're still closed to anyone who won't pay the extra so the government are giving those students more by helping them to pay for something many of them wouldn't otherwise be able to afford even though there is a far cheaper option available to them down the road.

Blahblahblah!

THE STATE DOES NOT GIVE MORE MONEY PER PUPIL TO FEE PAYING SCHOOLS

Please take your perceived/imagined slights down the yard

Anita Blow

RainyDay wrote: »

No they're not. There is no entitlement in law or policy to a 'subsidy'.

The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social

The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative

The constitution dictates that the state must guarantee a minimum level of education for everyone equally, & that this is in the form of a capitation grant for each student, whether they're public or private.

RainyDay wrote: »

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.

Sensational to the extreme. There has been massive investment in our public schools. I live in an average area in north Dublin & there is no school around me that hasn't been renovated in the last 10 years. The public school that I graduated from just 2 years ago was newly renovated and state of the art.

This isn't America or the UK, where there is a massive gulf between public and private schools. If we are to remove the subsidy for private schools now, leaving them to be a luxury for only the mega-wealthy, I can assure you will see a massive gap in standards open between both the public and private system.

The Pheasant

RealJohn wrote: »

Yes they do. Those same students can attend any public school for no extra fee but they can't turn up at a fee paying school and say "I'm entitled to an education, the government are paying (some of) your teachers so I'm not paying anything extra to attend." The government is making private schools more affordable by paying their teachers but they're still closed to anyone who won't pay the extra so the government are giving those students more by helping them to pay for something many of them wouldn't otherwise be able to afford even though there is a far cheaper option available to them down the road.

But over 50% of secondary pupils in the country attend fee-paying secondary schools - and I would say the vast majority are the type as outlined before, with parents who make sacrfices to other things such as holidays, leisure time, vehicles etc. which allows them to attend these schools...the ideal situation would be that the state run schools would be up to the same quality as the current fee-paying and so these families would gladly send their children there. But the simple fact is that the state run schools are not up to the same quality and that is why people are reluctant to send their children to them. If the state were to withdraw the subsidies from private schools, it could use that money to improve the state schools which would be brilliant, but unfortunately that would take a huge amount of time during which state schools would be inundated with pupils who could no longer afford the fee paying schools, causing the education of all pupils in state run schools to suffer as a result, at least until the money could be put to good use.

whiteandlight

Please give a source for 50% of secondary students attending private schools?

Miss Lockhart

The simple fact is that if the government removed all funding from fee-paying schools then a large amount of parents would no longer be able to afford it. That, in my eyes, means that the state are, in effect, helping individuals to access these schools.

Nobody is claiming that the government is giving more to one child than another, just tbat the way the current payments work subsidises unmerited advantage.

That is my opinion and I respect that others disagree. But all the capital letters, expletives and multiple exclamation marks in the world won't bully me into agreeing thay the current system is fair or the best use of government funding.

Anita Blow

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

The simple fact is that if the government removed all funding from fee-paying schools then a large amount of parents would no longer be able to afford it. That, in my eyes, means that the state are, in effect, helping individuals to access these schools.

Nobody is claiming that the government is giving more to one child than another, just tbat the way the current payments work subsidises unmerited advantage.

That is my opinion and I respect that others disagree. But all the capital letters, expletives and multiple exclamation marks in the world will bully me into agreeing thay the current system is fair or the best use of government funding.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think the situation we have at the moment, while not ideal, is the best out of the other options which have been presented. Mainly because;
1) It narrows the gap in standards between public & private schools. Without any subsidy, the private schools would be only for the very wealthy and you'd have a serious brain drain as some very good public teachers are poached by private schools at very high wages, as happens in the US & UK.
2) Realistically, how do you propose we would fund all the students which would flood into the public system?
Currently, the state only pays the teachers salaries in the private schools, whereas it pays far more for public students. If they stopped that, it would result in thousands of students entering the public system that can't afford private school anymore, as well as private schools having to revert to public if they lose too many students.
The government would then not only have to pay for the salaries of those teachers, but then provide capital costs for buildings, capitation grants for the running of the schools etc.
PWC report shows that the government pays €4552 per student in private schools, compared to €8035 per public student. We have neither the money nor the public infrastructure to accommodate these students.

I'm of the opinion that we have a very good public school system, having only left it 2 years ago. Don't see how it could've been better if I were in a private school, however I understand if parents want to top up the state subsidy to give their child a private education.

joebloggs32

The Pheasant wrote: »

But over 50% of secondary pupils in the country attend fee-paying secondary schools - and I would say the vast majority are the type as outlined before, with parents who make sacrfices to other things such as holidays, leisure time, vehicles etc. which allows them to attend these schools...the ideal situation would be that the state run schools would be up to the same quality as the current fee-paying and so these families would gladly send their children there. But the simple fact is that the state run schools are not up to the same quality and that is why people are reluctant to send their children to them. If the state were to withdraw the subsidies from private schools, it could use that money to improve the state schools which would be brilliant, but unfortunately that would take a huge amount of time during which state schools would be inundated with pupils who could no longer afford the fee paying schools, causing the education of all pupils in state run schools to suffer as a result, at least until the money could be put to good use.

I love the way you pulled a statistic out of thin air to back up your argument.
Fee paying schools are in the same bracket as private hospitals. If you go private then pay for it.

joebloggs32

Anita Blow wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from, but I think the situation we have at the moment, while not ideal, is the best out of the other options which have been presented. Mainly because;
1) It narrows the gap in standards between public & private schools. Without any subsidy, the private schools would be only for the very wealthy and you'd have a serious brain drain as some very good public teachers are poached by private schools at very high wages, as happens in the US & UK.
2) Realistically, how do you propose we would fund all the students which would flood into the public system?
Currently, the state only pays the teachers salaries in the private schools, whereas it pays far more for public students. If they stopped that, it would result in thousands of students entering the public system that can't afford private school anymore, as well as private schools having to revert to public if they lose too many students.
The government would then not only have to pay for the salaries of those teachers, but then provide capital costs for buildings, capitation grants for the running of the schools etc.
PWC report shows that the government pays €4552 per student in private schools, compared to €8035 per public student. We have neither the money nor the public infrastructure to accommodate these students.

I'm of the opinion that we have a very good public school system, having only left it 2 years ago. Don't see how it could've been better if I were in a private school, however I understand if parents want to top up the state subsidy to give their child a private education.

Not every child would end up on the public system, Therefore a pot of money would be generated that would help to cover the capitation grants from the money that was previously paid to subsidise the education of those that have remained in the fee paying schools.
I wouldn't care if we did not save a single cent. The notion of state sponsored private education is ethically wrong. If some of these parents are worried about poor facilities etc. they could always give a voluntary contribution to help out or get involved in fundraising as many parents do around the country

steddyeddy

eyescreamcone wrote: »

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.

If the parents want the best for their children? Here’s the line that keepscoming up again and again in this argument and I can’t tell you how offensiveit is. 99% of parents bar those with severe social problems want the best for their children.

What the reality is:

· If parents can afford to pay 4000 extra a year (alot of households have less than 100 in disposable income leftover a month.)

· Grinds are not government funded and they can bequite cheap compared to said 4000 a year

· Providing good nutrition for their kids? Likeevery parent on the planet does?

Parents will/should want the best
for their children.

Parents do generally want the best for their children. It’s all parents by the way not only the ones who can afford 4000 a year.

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.

Now you’re speaking my language. The people who do best once they hit thirdlevel are generally mature students in my experience. Most of them do not come from private school. I know because I’m doing a PHD in biochem that requires demonstrating to labs and tutorials and I can tell you the people coming from private schools are not the top of the class year after year. Private school offers a higher chance statistically of getting into college. It’s not some testing system that ensures only the bestget into college. It sends those who can pay to college. This is where I have a problem with state funding of a school that offers a better chance to those who can afford it. It offers a better chance to students who already havea better chance than those born into unluckier circumstances. Those children born into wealthier (relatively wealthier) families already have a better chance. Why increase that chance more.

There are a fixed number of places for college and I don’t believe in paying your way to academia. The whole root of my issue with private schools lies inthe fact that I worked hard to secure scholarships to fund postgrads. I got itof my own back. Not how rich my parents where or where not. Finland got rid of most of their private schools and the gap between the rich and poor in scores shrank. I don’t see one good reason why people should pay money to increasetheir chances getting into academia regardless of intelligence.

Those with the best genes should get into college and only those. Money shouldn't dictate college entry. Look to Finland for how to achieve this.

steddyeddy

joebloggs32 wrote: »

Not every child would end up on the public system, Therefore a pot of money would be generated that would help to cover the capitation grants from the money that was previously paid to subsidise the education of those that have remained in the fee paying schools.
I wouldn't care if we did not save a single cent. The notion of state sponsored private education is ethically wrong. If some of these parents are worried about poor facilities etc. they could always give a voluntary contribution to help out or get involved in fundraising as many parents do around the country

Yes that's the thing. Savings don't mean anything to me in regards of getting the best student into college.

RealJohn

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Blahblahblah!

THE STATE DOES NOT GIVE MORE MONEY PER PUPIL TO FEE PAYING SCHOOLS

Please take your perceived/imagined slights down the yard

Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm only a public sector worker who didn't go to a private school. I should learn my place and keep my mouth shut when my betters have something to say.

The fact remains, if the government is subsidising private education, they're subsidising and indeed endorsing educational advantage/disadvantage. It isn't about saving money (though it's not likely to cost as much extra as people are making out, if it costs anything extra at all). It's about fairness.

themont85

Enrollment in a lot of fee paying schools is at a tipping point. A few more are going to collapse into the public sector within a couple of years.

Irish Times will on the one hand love the "egalitarian" nature of this but on the other bitch about why budgets in current public ones are cut further to help fund the new public ones.

steddyeddy

Well if funding is a problem then charge fees at third level dependent on means testing for assets, savings or wage. I wouldn't have a problem with private schools if that was brought in.

The Pheasant

Musicmental85 wrote: »

Please give a source for 50% of secondary students attending private schools?

Unesco report on education provision in Ireland, page 3, point 2.
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/International/ICE/natrap/Ireland.pdf

steddyeddy

The Pheasant wrote: »

Unesco report on education provision in Ireland, page 3, point 2.
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/International/ICE/natrap/Ireland.pdf

Well if that's true that is something we have to change.

Miss Lockhart

The Pheasant wrote: »

Unesco report on education provision in Ireland, page 3, point 2.
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/International/ICE/natrap/Ireland.pdf

That says that the schools are privately owned and managed, not fee-paying. Most religious owned schools are "privately owned and managed" but they are not fee-paying and are not private in the sense being discussed on this thread.

steddyeddy

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

That says that the schools are privately owned and managed, not fee-paying. Most religious owned schools are "privately owned and managed" but they are not fee-paying and are not private in the sense being discussed on this thread.

Indeed. They are owned by the catholic church.

evolving_doors

The Pheasant wrote: »

Unesco report on education provision in Ireland, page 3, point 2.
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/International/ICE/natrap/Ireland.pdf

Hmm if you mean this quote then you have read it wrong... ..

"Secondary schools, catering for almost 57% of second-level students, are privately
owned and managed.

Privately owned means not owned by the public.. i.e. a religious order might own the school property.. this does not necessarily mean that it is a fee paying school ...sorry a fee charging school.

steddyeddy

It's also amazing the way people are being labelled as having a chip on their shoulder. People who are concerned that money is being used to give child an educational advantage over another (possibly disadvantaged) child. I've made it academically so I don't know what I have to be jealous of. I'm simply cncerned that children are being undeservedly rewarded over already disadvantaged children.

whiteandlight

You have completely misinterpreted. Privately owned/managed does not mean fee paying! In the next sentence '95 per cent of secondary schools participate in the free education scheme.'
95% of the 57% of secondary schools is 54.15% of all schools are public.
28% are VEC which are not fee paying
15% are community/comprehensive also not fee paying

Total of 97.15% of schools are public and 2.85% are fee paying. A far cry from 50%

The Pheasant

Ah I see...apologies!

chippers

Out of interest - of the schools privately owned by the catholic church in the public system, do they receive any monetary benefit from the government for providing these schools?

evolving_doors

chippers wrote: »

Out of interest - of the schools privately owned by the catholic church in the public system, do they receive any monetary benefit from the government for providing these schools?

Mmm! By that I presume you mean does the religious order make a profit... Not that Im aware of maybe up until recently the christian brothers or nuns who worked as teachers, their salaries would have went back into the orders pot..after that I would imagine they would only be banking childrens souls!

melekalikimaka

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's also amazing the way people are being labelled as having a chip on their shoulder. People who are concerned that money is being used to give child an educational advantage over another (possibly disadvantaged) child. I've made it academically so I don't know what I have to be jealous of. I'm simply cncerned that children are being undeservedly rewarded over already disadvantaged children.

it seems like chip on shoulder tbh, you seem to have a mindset that fee paying is bad, without really any justification of backing to it

steddyeddy

melekalikimaka wrote: »

it seems like chip on shoulder tbh, you seem to have a mindset that fee paying is bad, without really any justification of backing to it

I don't think you have a clue what chip on the shoulder means to be honest. People voice their opinion that giving one student a state sponsored educational advantage is unethical, you can't come up with a reason why it isn't so you spout out "chip on shoulder". I would say a chip on ones shoulder would be correlated with educational advantage at anothers expense rather than self earned achievement.

The Pheasant

Tbh I would only call "chip on the shoulder" into it regarding the earlier post (not by you) that claimed people would actually send children to a fee paying school to "prevent them mixing with perceived lower classes", I mean that's prejudiced horse**** plain and simple.

steddyeddy

The Pheasant wrote: »

Tbh I would only call "chip on the shoulder" into it regarding the earlier post (not by you) that claimed people would actually send children to a fee paying school to "prevent them mixing with perceived lower classes", I mean that's prejudiced horse**** plain and simple.

I agree, it isn't true in the vast majority of cases although I am sure there are a tiny minority who think like that. As I said I went to a deis school and my friends went to private school. I can't distinguish between them and any other friends that didn't go to a private school.

When the debate gets insulting it turns into a pointless arguement.

melekalikimaka

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think you have a clue what chip on the shoulder means to be honest. People voice their opinion that giving one student a state sponsored educational advantage is unethical, you can't come up with a reason why it isn't so you spout out "chip on shoulder". I would say a chip on ones shoulder would be correlated with educational advantage at anothers expense rather than self earned achievement.

youseem to enjoy throwing about buzz words with no facts behind it, it seems like you are almost spiteful... its economically sound practice and using words like 'unethical' and 'at others expense' does nothing more than make you look like your padding a weak argument

steddyeddy

melekalikimaka wrote: »

youseem to enjoy throwing about buzz words with no facts behind it, it seems like you are almost spiteful... its economically sound practice and using words like 'unethical' and 'at others expense' does nothing more than make you look like your padding a weak argument

Between this and the personal "chip on the shoulder thing" I suggest you leave personal slights out if you want to engage in debate. I am open to comprimise if I am treated with respect.

Miss Lockhart

melekalikimaka wrote: »

youseem to enjoy throwing about buzz words with no facts behind it, it seems like you are almost spiteful... its economically sound practice and using words like 'unethical' and 'at others expense' does nothing more than make you look like your padding a weak argument

Whereas throwing around phrases like "chip on your shoulder" really enhances your argument.

And again, "economically sound practice" (I thought you were against buzz words) is not the core issue for me or anyone else I know who shares my point of view.

steddyeddy

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Whereas throwing around phrases like "chip on your shoulder" really enhances your argument.

And again, "economically sound practice" (I thought you were against buzz words) is not the core issue for me or anyone else I know who shares my point of view.

Agreed. I think private schools do save the state money but my argument isn't from an economical angle.