Access to Education

p1akuw47h5r3it

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Society would be better off because when everyone starts on an equal footing the smartest and hardest working rise to the top and the laziest, regardless of social background, don't. No one should have a better start in life because their parents can afford it.

So basically you think private schools should be outlawed altogether then.

And you did not address my other points. The overall standard of education would diminish due to a large number of children entering the public system. This benefits noone.

And how do the smartest and hardest working not already rise to the top with our current system?

PRAF

DanDan6592 wrote: »

That is such nonsense. As has already been pointed out a large portion of students at these schools are from middle-class families. To suggest that they are all super wealthy or the system is "rigged" is ridiculous.

There is also nothing stopping anyone from a public school doing well and going to University if they want to. They just have to put the work in like everyone else.

And has already been stated private secondary schools save the government money.

I'm sure there are some middle class kids in these schools but in my experience the majority would be upper middle class or very wealthy.

I've no issue with these schools except for the fact that they are subsidised by govt. At a time when we have greater needs, this subsidy is unjustifiable IMO.

The facts re admissions to TCD, ucd, etc speak for themselves. The system is rigged whether you care to admit it or not

Re saving the state money.. That is open to debate. In the short term, perhaps. However this kind of economic rent seeking is argued by many economists to be detrimental in the longer term. It deepens inequality, depresses social mobility, reduces equality of opportunity, and ultimately the elite gain to the detriment of the majority

Iwasfrozen

DanDan6592 wrote: »

So basically you think private schools should be outlawed altogether then.

Not out lawed. Cut all government subsidies and the vast majority will close down or become public schools. Only very few like Blackrock college will remain open and even then their fees will sky rocket.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

And you did not address my other points. The overall standard of education would diminish due to a large number of children entering the public system. This benefits no one.

I'm happy to pay the cost for more teachers through increased taxation if it means we have a more equal, meritocratic society.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

And how do the smartest and hardest working not already rise to the top with our current system?

They do but they don't start out on an equal footing since private schools offer a better standard of education.

Iwasfrozen

PRAF wrote: »

Re saving the state money.. That is open to debate. In the short term, perhaps. However this kind of economic rent seeking is argued by many economists to be detrimental in the longer term. It deepens inequality, depresses social mobility, reduces equality of opportunity, and ultimately the elite gain to the detriment of the majority

This. In the long term a country without high social mobility will become inefficient.

p1akuw47h5r3it

PRAF wrote: »

I'm sure there are some middle class kids in these schools but in my experience the majority would be upper middle class or very wealthy.

I've no issue with these schools except for the fact that they are subsidised by govt. At a time when we have greater needs, this subsidy is unjustifiable IMO.

The facts re admissions to TCD, ucd, etc speak for themselves. The system is rigged whether you care to admit it or not

Re saving the state money.. That is open to debate. In the short term, perhaps. However this kind of economic rent seeking is argued by many economists to be detrimental in the longer term. It deepens inequality, depresses social mobility, reduces equality of opportunity, and ultimately the elite gain to the detriment of the majority

The admissions to TCD, UCD etc. will show that those students that go to college tend to be from middle to extremely wealthy backgrounds. The form of school doesn't tend to matter.
The government and colleges bends over backwards to get people from disadvantaged areas to go to college (free fees, access programmes etc.), yet the number of students going onto 3rd level from disadvantaged areas has not increased by much at all.
My point being that it tends to be down to a persons social status whether they will go to college or not.

Now before you say "well getting rid of priate schools will change this", it won't. You'll just have more children in public schools in middle class, rich areas and possibly disadvantaged areas meaning the overall level of education will decrease. The number of students from poorer backgrounds going to college will not change.

Therefore you will be left with a situation where the taxpayer has to pay more to fund the extra students, the standard of education will fall across the board and less well off people will be no better off (or even worse off considering they may end up paying more in taxes).

p1akuw47h5r3it

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not out lawed. Cut all government subsidies and the vast majority will close down or become public schools. Only very few like Blackrock college will remain open and even then their fees will sky rocket.


I'm happy to pay the cost for more teachers through increased taxation if it means we have a more equal, meritocratic society.


They do but they don't start out on an equal footing since private schools offer a better standard of education.

You'll also have to pay more taxes to build more schools, increased heating costs, grant costs etc. It will all add up.

Iwasfrozen

DanDan6592 wrote: »

You'll also have to pay more taxes to build more schools, increased heating costs, grant costs etc. It will all add up.

Of course it does. And I'd be happy to pay it. I couldn't have gone to college without government support and everyone should be entitled to that same support. Embrace the revolution comrade.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course it does. And I'd be happy to pay it. I couldn't have gone to college without government support and everyone should be entitled to that same support. Embrace the revolution comrade.

Everyone, so even the super wealthy??

And I've always loved this anthem more tbh :pac::pac:

:pac:

Iwasfrozen

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Everyone, so even the super wealthy??

And I've always loved this anthem more tbh :pac::pac:

:pac:

They're entitled to it if they find themselves on hard times yeah. But middle class parents should not be allowed to buy their children an advantage over the children of working class parents.

I love that anthem.

PRAF

DanDan6592 wrote: »

The admissions to TCD, UCD etc. will show that those students that go to college tend to be from middle to extremely wealthy backgrounds. The form of school doesn't tend to matter.
The government and colleges bends over backwards to get people from disadvantaged areas to go to college (free fees, access programmes etc.), yet the number of students going onto 3rd level from disadvantaged areas has not increased by much at all.
My point being that it tends to be down to a persons social status whether they will go to college or not.

Now before you say "well getting rid of priate schools will change this", it won't. You'll just have more children in public schools in middle class, rich areas and possibly disadvantaged areas meaning the overall level of education will decrease. The number of students from poorer backgrounds going to college will not change.

Therefore you will be left with a situation where the taxpayer has to pay more to fund the extra students, the standard of education will fall across the board and less well off people will be no better off (or even worse off considering they may end up paying more in taxes).

Re social status - yes, this is why the current system is wrong. The education system is rigged in favour of the elite, as are the professions, as is the legal system, the regulatory regime, the health system, etc. All of this reinforces inequality. Ultimately this inequality is bad for everyone.

K-9

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Well students would be worse of as the student teacher ratio would increase meaning less individual interaction with the teacher.

Not necessarily, the €4,000 a student a year saved, could be diverted to the schools who bear the brunt of any changes. I doubt the full state subvention would be cut, even if it was halved, I doubt that would mean 50% of students would move. Parents would cut back on expenditure to try and pay for it, if they see it as so worthwhile.

The taxpayer would be worse of as they would have the cover the cost of a large number of students re-entering public schools (not to mention the probable need to build more schools)

They'd just pay the usual subvention, which is a small proportion of the private school subsidy anyway. Any unemployed teachers from the semi private sector could be employed by the state, they pay 80% or so of teachers wages anyway. Some infrastructure investment might need to be fast tracked, some positives there too.

And you could say society as a whole would be worse of as the fully private schools would simply become extremely elite.

Well yes if we cut all state subventions, but at least we'd have a truly private system. I've no problem with parents paying for all of their childrens education if they so wish.

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They're entitled to it if they find themselves on hard times yeah. But middle class parents should not be allowed to buy their children an advantage over the children of working class parents.

I love that anthem.

They should have the right to buy their kids a better education if they want, the state on the other hand should have no part in spending public money to pay for a better education for some children than others.

The wealthy have as much of a right to a free education as everyone else, they do not have a right to state support for a private education however.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They're entitled to it if they find themselves on hard times yeah. But middle class parents should not be allowed to buy their children an advantage over the children of working class parents.

I love that anthem.

So you would ban middle class families from buying grinds for their children aswell I guess?

I have to say all you are going to do is prevent parents from providing the best education they can/want to give to their children all the while lowering the overall standard of education for everyone else.

And all this at an increased cost to the taxpayer. if thats what you believe is right so be it, but I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

And yes same, used to know it off by heart:)

p1akuw47h5r3it

PRAF wrote: »

Re social status - yes, this is why the current system is wrong. The education system is rigged in favour of the elite, as are the professions, as is the legal system, the regulatory regime, the health system, etc. All of this reinforces inequality. Ultimately this inequality is bad for everyone.

No it's not. I've outlined in that post why it's not. Can you in anyway prove the system is "rigged" in favor of the elite?

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

They should have the right to buy their kids a better education if they want, the state should have no part in spending public money in buying their children a better education than their working class counterparts however.

The wealthy have as much of a right to a free education as everyone else, they do not have a right to state support for a private education however.

Well yes I should have phrased that better. I 100% agree.

K-9

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Everyone, so even the super wealthy??

And I've always loved this anthem more tbh :pac::pac:

:pac:

Wait a second here, I normally pay little attention to the taglines posters use, but you've just used a Communist Russia video. That's fine, very funny, but I find a poster with a libertarian tagline arguing for retaining state subvention in private education, comedy genius.

p1akuw47h5r3it

K-9 wrote: »

Wait a second here, I normally pay little attention to the taglines posters use, but you've just used a Communist Russia video. That's fine, very funny, but I find a poster with a libertarian tagline arguing for retaining state subvention in private education, comedy genius.

I like the tune, and used to study Russian. Another poster linked to a North Korean video hence why I linked that one.

Edit: I would be in favor of a completely private school system i.e. no state schools at all. However this is ireland and thus will (probably) never happen. The next best thing is to thus lower the amount of government spending, in which this case will increase if the subvention is removed.

Iwasfrozen

DanDan6592 wrote: »

So you would ban middle class families from buying grinds for their children aswell I guess?

I have to say all you are going to do is prevent parents from providing the best education they can/want to give to their children all the while lowering the overall standard of education for everyone else.

And all this at an increased cost to the taxpayer. if thats what you believe is right so be it, but I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

And yes same, used to know it off by heart:)

No. And not only because I'd be banning myself from a very profitable part time job.

Why would we be giving an overall worse education? Provided the teacher: student ratio stays constant the level of education should not decrease.

Yes it will cost the taxpayer money in the short term but in the long term social mobility has economic benefits.

K-9

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They do but they don't start out on an equal footing since private schools offer a better standard of education.

Exactly, I've no problem with private schools offering better levels of education as long as the state doesn't pay for it.

Iwasfrozen

K-9 wrote: »

Wait a second here, I normally pay little attention to the taglines posters use, but you've just used a Communist Russia video. That's fine, very funny, but I find a poster with a libertarian tagline arguing for retaining state subvention in private education, comedy genius.

Join the revolution comrade. Mayday is over but the fun has just begun!

PRAF

DanDan6592 wrote: »

So you would ban middle class families from buying grinds for their children aswell I guess?

I have to say all you are going to do is prevent parents from providing the best education they can/want to give to their children all the while lowering the overall standard of education for everyone else.

And all this at an increased cost to the taxpayer. if thats what you believe is right so be it, but I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

And yes same, used to know it off by heart:)

Grinds - awful IMO. Teaching to the exam only, they are the opposite of what real knowledge and education is all about. they succeed in getting less able, but financially better off kids into college over more intelligent, but poorer kids. For that reason I'm not in favour of them.

I wouldn't ban them though. This isn't some totalitarian state were living in here.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No. And not only because I'd be banning myself from a very profitable part time job.

Why would we be giving an overall worse education? Provided the teacher: student ratio stays constant the level of education should not decrease.

Yes it will cost the taxpayer money in the short term but in the long term social mobility has economic benefits.

But you said you believe that middle class parents should not be able to buy their children and educational advantage over working class parents...

It would cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money, which we simply don't have. It's unworkable. And I'd dispute the social mobility aswell:

"The admissions to TCD, UCD etc. will show that those students that go to college tend to be from middle to extremely wealthy backgrounds. The form of school doesn't tend to matter.
The government and colleges bends over backwards to get people from disadvantaged areas to go to college (free fees, access programmes etc.), yet the number of students going onto 3rd level from disadvantaged areas has not increased by much at all.
My point being that it tends to be down to a persons social status whether they will go to college or not."

Having no or very few private schools will not change this. Whether a person goes to college tends to be down to the importance they and their family place on 3rd level education, not the type of school they go to.

p1akuw47h5r3it

PRAF wrote: »

Grinds - awful IMO. Teaching to the exam only, they are the opposite of what real knowledge and education is all about. they succeed in getting less able, but financially better off kids into college over more intelligent, but poorer kids. For that reason I'm not in favour of them.

I wouldn't ban them though. This isn't some totalitarian state were living in here.

Well thats more due to the system we have with regards getting into University, I still don't believe that the "elite" intentionally forced this situation to arise so as to only benefit them however.

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No. And not only because I'd be banning myself from a very profitable part time job.

Why would we be giving an overall worse education? Provided the teacher: student ratio stays constant the level of education should not decrease.

Yes it will cost the taxpayer money in the short term but in the long term social mobility has economic benefits.

I'm not sure it would cost the tax payer more, not substantianly more anyway.

The simple argument you often hear is that through paying fees these parents contribute X, and that amount X is money the government don't have to pay, but that money is not used to replace government money, it is for the most part extra money the schools have to hire aditional teachers and pay for the other various features that make these schools attractive. If all these schools became Public the state would not have to stump up for the X amount that is currently provided by the parents.

If support for private schools was removed a large amount of them would be forced into the Public system, if this happens I am not convinced that the state would face a huge bill, the state already pays the teachers to the same extent as in other schools, the formerly private school would loose its additional teachers, the wadge bill for teachers would not go up.

The state would have to take on the bill for running the schools that enter the public system and pay bills like heating etc, but at the same time not all Private schools would go public meaning a saving on those that remain Private.

You may see an increase in overall expenditure but in relative terms a miniscule increase in comparision to the total education budget and even small fry compared to the increase in expenditure required due to population growth anyway.

Iwasfrozen

DanDan6592 wrote: »

But you said you believe that middle class parents should be able to buy their children and educational advantage over working class parents...

As PRAF above me said we aren't living in a totalitarian state. What do you want us to do? Have the garda monitor people so they don't get grinds? I don't think middle class children should get a better education then working class children but a bit of common sense is needed.

It would cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money, which we simply don't have. It's unworkable. And I'd dispute the social mobility aswell:

Hardly huge, and what ever the cost is it's worth it for a more equal society.

Having no or very few private schools will not change this. Whether a person goes to college tends to be down to the importance they and their family place on 3rd level education, not the type of school they go to.

Surely the ability to go to college depends on your CAO points. And private schools give a better education and have a higher average student CAO point score then public schools.

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

I'm not sure it would cost the tax payer more, not substantianly more anyway.

The simple argument you often hear is that through paying fees these parents contribute X, and that amount X is money the government don't have to pay, but that money is not used to replace government money, it is for the most part extra money the schools have to hire aditional teachers and pay for the other various features that make these schools attractive. If all these schools became Public the state would not have to stump up for the X amount that is currently provided by the parents.

If support for private schools was removed a large amount of them would be forced into the Public system, if this happens I am not convinced that the state would face a huge bill, the state already pays the teachers to the same extent as in other schools, the formerly private school would loose its additional teachers, the wadge bill for teachers would not go up.

The state would have to take on the bill for running the schools that enter the public system and pay bills like heating etc, but at the same time not all Private schools would go public meaning a saving on those that remain Private.

You may see an increase in overall expenditure but in relative terms a miniscule increase in comparision to the total education budget and even small fry compared to the increase in expenditure required due to population growth anyway.

Actually that's a very good point I hadn't thought of that. So even if the government cuts subsidies we shouldn't expect a huge increase in government expenditure anyway.

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually that's a very good point I hadn't thought of that. So even if the government cuts subsidies we shouldn't expect a huge increase in government expenditure anyway.

No reason to believe so, the state already pays one of the major costs. For teachers wadges there would be no increase for schools becoming public and a saving on those remaining private.

There probably would be an increase in overall expenditure but certainly not a huge one.

K-9

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually that's a very good point I hadn't thought of that. So even if the government cuts subsidies we shouldn't expect a huge increase in government expenditure anyway.

I very much doubt it myself. This "it will cost the state double" point keeps coming up, but I haven't seen the actual figures for it. It just seems to be one of those statements that are just accepted as fact.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As PRAF above me said we aren't living in a totalitarian state. What do you want us to do? Have the garda monitor people so they don't get grinds? I don't think middle class children should get a better education then working class children but a bit of common sense is needed.


Hardly huge, and what ever the cost is it's worth it for a more equal society.


Surely the ability to go to college depends on your CAO points. And private schools give a better education and have a higher average student CAO point score then public schools.

I don't know your the one who said it not me.

It would be huge, you'd have to build more schools and then pay their running costs for as long as the state owns them.

Your ability to go to college depends on how much value you put on a 3rd level education. As I've said, there are a number of programmes put in place to encourage people from disadvantaged areas to go to college (free fees, access programmes etc.) yet the numbers going has not substantially increased.

Now I don't necessarily believe there is anything wrong with not wanting to go to college, my point is that getting rid of the subvention will simply see more cost lumped onto the taxpayer, a drop in education standards as a whole and this equal society you envision will not come to pass.

PRAF

DanDan6592 wrote: »

No it's not. I've outlined in that post why it's not. Can you in anyway prove the system is "rigged" in favor of the elite?

Yes, the proof is our high levels of inequality and low social mobility relative to more progressive and better performing countries like the Scandinavians.

Education - 3rd level dominated by students from fee paying schools

Professions - doctors, lawyers, etc all have restrictive and anti competitive practices which favour the encumbant elites

Legal/justice - white collar crims hardly ever convicted

Regulators - lax regulation in financial services which rewards millionaire bankers taking excessive risk and punishes ordinary joe soaps who foot the bill

Iwasfrozen

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I don't know your the one who said it not me.

It would be huge, you'd have to build more schools and then pay their running costs for as long as the state owns them.

Your ability to go to college depends on how much value you put on a 3rd level education. As I've said, there are a number of programmes put in place to encourage people from disadvantaged areas to go to college (free fees, access programmes etc.) yet the numbers going has not substantially increased.

Now I don't necessarily believe there is anything wrong with not wanting to go to college, my point is that getting rid of the subvention will simply see more cost lumped onto the taxpayer, a drop in education standards as a whole and this equal society you envision will not come to pass.

It wouldn't be huge it would be minnow at most and a few of the posters above me have articulated why.

p1akuw47h5r3it

PRAF wrote: »

Yes, the proof is our high levels of inequality and low social mobility relative to more progressive and better performing countries like the Scandinavians.

Education - 3rd level dominated by students from fee paying schools

It's not dominated by fee paying students but how in ever if it were true I'd say it's more to do with the importance these students and their families place on a 3rd level education as opposed to the simple fact that they went to a fee paying school.

Professions - doctors, lawyers, etc all have restrictive and anti competitive practices which favour the encumbant elites

Like what? WHat is stopping a working class student from becoming a doctor or lawyer?

Legal/justice - white collar crimes hardly ever convicted

This is because they are harder to prosecute, however certainly a lot lot more needs to be done.

Regulators - lax regulation in financial services which rewards millionaire bankers taking excessive risk and punishes ordinary joe soaps who foot the bill

How is this relevant to our education system?

K-9

As for building schools, the sate already pays out a huge amount in renting out prefabs, extra numbers from private schools would bring forward investment in actual concrete new classrooms, which are a long term investment, replacing medium term rentals on prefabs, another saving made. Many schools are crying out for new classrooms, the capital investment could well be totally offset by cutting out prefab rentals over a period of 10 years or so.

The new influx of students could make it economically viable beyond reasonable doubt to invest, and save expensive prefab rentals. Again that's assuming a 50% cut in subvention would mean a 50% drop in private school numbers from 26,000 to 13,000. I don't believe it would. If the private system is that good, an extra €40 a week will not mean halving private school numbers. It might mean less discretionary spending on the extras, which might be the real worry here.

Then again the state has to pay for things like special education, stuff like that, something the private sector doesn't have to worry about.

PRAF

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I don't know your the one who said it not me.

It would be huge, you'd have to build more schools and then pay their running costs for as long as the state owns them.

Your ability to go to college depends on how much value you put on a 3rd level education. As I've said, there are a number of programmes put in place to encourage people from disadvantaged areas to go to college (free fees, access programmes etc.) yet the numbers going has not substantially increased.

Now I don't necessarily believe there is anything wrong with not wanting to go to college, my point is that getting rid of the subvention will simply see more cost lumped onto the taxpayer, a drop in education standards as a whole and this equal society you envision will not come to pass.

Look at Finland, very few private schools yet they have the best education system in Europe. Also much cheaper than you'd think

An Coilean

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I don't know your the one who said it not me.

It would be huge, you'd have to build more schools and then pay their running costs for as long as the state owns them.

Why would you need to build more schools? (Aside from the schools that have to be built anyway due to population growth) The schools already exist, they would simply be forced to become public schools.

Yes you would have to pay the running costs of the schools that go public, the state already pays one of the major running costs of these schools.
We would have to see how much it would cost the state to run these schools as a normal public school but I can't see it being unmanagable.

Also why would there be a drop in education standards? In those specific schools maybe, but across the public system as a whole there is no reason to expectg a drop in standards, indeed the aditional teachers in those private schools would be released to work in ordinary schools.

PRAF

DanDan6592 wrote: »

It's not dominated by fee paying students but how in ever if it were true I'd say it's more to do with the importance these students and their families place on a 3rd level education as opposed to the simple fact that they went to a fee paying school.


Like what? WHat is stopping a working class student from becoming a doctor or lawyer?



This is because they are harder to prosecute, however certainly a lot lot more needs to be done.



How is this relevant to our education system?

All of what I mentioned are examples of the elite protecting themselves to the detriment of wider society. You claim that educational outcomes can never be equal because education, particularly 3rd level, is fundamentally linked to your social class. Unfortunately you are right, inequality is self perpetuating unless something is done about it. Cutting subsidies for private schools seems like a good place to start to make the system a little fairer for everyone

K-9

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Your ability to go to college depends on how much value you put on a 3rd level education. As I've said, there are a number of programmes put in place to encourage people from disadvantaged areas to go to college (free fees, access programmes etc.) yet the numbers going has not substantially increased.

I completely agree free third level fees didn't add that much value to the 3rd level, didn't address much in disadvantaged areas that targetted initiatives couldn't have accomplished anyway. Seemed to add plenty of more cars to university and college car parks, but not much else!

Which is why I find it odd you are arguing for retaining state subvention and not arguing for private sector education to stand by its own two feet.

Cody Pomeray

DanDan6592 wrote: »

The next best thing is to thus lower the amount of government spending, in which this case will increase if the subvention is removed.

Can you explain this comment using specific numbers, or otherwise substantiate that?

Certainly, if one removed state funding of teachers in fee charging schools (lets not add to the charade by calling these private schools), these schools may have to do a number of things or a combination thereof:

[1] cut spending spending on senior management salaries and benefits in kind [2] raise revenues by private activities - functions and events, for example. [3] admit a slightly weakened pupil teacher ratio [4] simply absorb the increase from their own reserves or discretionary income [5] charge higher tuition fees

Note that charging higher tuition fees is only one option. But, lets be extremists and imagine it is the only option available:

So, in the extreme event of the latter policy being undertaken alone, Colm McCarthy [An Bord Snip Nua reports, Volume II - Paper 6 – Education and Science] has estimated a resultant increase of fees of the order of 21%.

Obviously phased in over time, this would eventually amount to an increase of €500/year in some schools, with the extreme examples seeing an increase of €2000 per annum. Significant - certainly - but not catastrophic for a lot of families.

Lets go even further. A recent Department of Education report finds no evidence of any likelihood of a significant switch to the public system in the event of the exchequer no longer paying for teachers in fee paying schools.

The Report finds that not one single school would lose more than 60% of its present discretionary income.

The 4 worst affected schools in the state would still have a minimum discretionary income of between €145,000 and €335,000. Maybe a few of them would move over to the public system. So we may be looking at about 4 casualties.

So please, tell me where you are getting your figures.

Zubeneschamali

No, what most of them would do is drop fees, fire any surplus staff, and apply for capitation grants.

So the taxpayer would be on the hook for the running of these schools, not just the bulk of their teacher salaries.

The few remaining truly obnoxious elite schools could double their fees and become super elite.

An Coilean

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, what most of them would do is drop fees, fire any surplus staff, and apply for capitation grants.

How do you know?

Cody Pomeray

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, what most of them would do is drop fees, fire any surplus staff, and apply for capitation grants.

So the taxpayer would be on the hook for the running of these schools, not just the bulk of their teacher salaries.

The few remaining truly obnoxious elite schools could double their fees and become super elite.

Lets be clear, we won't even talk in half measures.

Lets say 100% of schools, at 9am tomorrow morning, unanimously entered the free fee scheme.

Between current capital loan repayments and recurring grants, it would cost the exchequer approximately €23 million.

That would mean, by the way, that all the facilities that have been built up in some of the most wonderful schools in the country, would suddenly be accessible to kids from all backgrounds, regardless of household finances.

That's actually not a bad deal... for us.

Except, it's a bad deal for the fee charging schools?

Why?

Because to access that €23m, they would have to forego €80 million of private funding.

They would have to be stupid to do this.

Zubeneschamali

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

They would have to be stupid to do this.

And yet that's exactly what a majority of schools did when the free fee scheme was introduced.

Cody Pomeray

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And yet that's exactly what a majority of schools did when the free fee scheme was introduced.

Because they didn't have the same sort of discretionary income.

The report i linked to found that no school would lose more than 60% of its discretionary income.

Only a small handful of schools - mainly those small Protestant schools who are already teetering on the brink of financial distress - would be likely to switch over to the non mandatory-fee-charging ("public") system.

In that context, why are you claiming that most schools would exit the fee charging scheme?

What evidence are you employing?

p1akuw47h5r3it

PRAF wrote: »

Look at Finland, very few private schools yet they have the best education system in Europe. Also much cheaper than you'd think

That doesn't adress any of my points.

An Coilean wrote: »

Why would you need to build more schools? (Aside from the schools that have to be built anyway due to population growth) The schools already exist, they would simply be forced to become public schools.

Yes you would have to pay the running costs of the schools that go public, the state already pays one of the major running costs of these schools.
We would have to see how much it would cost the state to run these schools as a normal public school but I can't see it being unmanagable.

Also why would there be a drop in education standards? In those specific schools maybe, but across the public system as a whole there is no reason to expectg a drop in standards, indeed the aditional teachers in those private schools would be released to work in ordinary schools.

So you would forcefully make private property the property of the public? What happened to not living in a totalarian state?

You would at the very least have to buy these schools, and I guess just hope that the owners are willing to sell to the state. Standards would drop if the above did not happen, or at least not increase, social mobility would not increase (for reasons I have already outlined) nor would social equality.

All that would happen is that the state would end up with greater education costs that firstly can't afford and for the benefit of noone.

PRAF wrote: »

All of what I mentioned are examples of the elite protecting themselves to the detriment of wider society. You claim that educational outcomes can never be equal because education, particularly 3rd level, is fundamentally linked to your social class. Unfortunately you are right, inequality is self perpetuating unless something is done about it. Cutting subsidies for private schools seems like a good place to start to make the system a little fairer for everyone

How is the system not already fair? If parents can afford to spend extra on their childrens education by sending them to a private (or semi-private if you prefer) then they should be allowd. It saves the state money and they get what they believe to be a better education for their child.

I fail how removing this option makes things "fairer".

K-9 wrote: »

I completely agree free third level fees didn't add that much value to the 3rd level, didn't address much in disadvantaged areas that targetted initiatives couldn't have accomplished anyway. Seemed to add plenty of more cars to university and college car parks, but not much else!

Which is why I find it odd you are arguing for retaining state subvention and not arguing for private sector education to stand by its own two feet.

I believe Universities should be privatized i.e tuition - fees introduced. I don't necessarily have a problem with government giving student grants however the grant system needs a serious overhaul first. I know loads of people who abuse the system or get grants when they are not needed (these students should still have to pay tuition fees with the grant going towards rent, books etc.)

I do believe education should be fully privatized but as i said it's Ireland, it's not going to happen. So you have to look for the next best thing!

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Can you explain this comment using specific numbers, or otherwise substantiate that?

Certainly, if one removed state funding of teachers in fee charging schools (lets not add to the charade by calling these private schools), these schools may have to do a number of things or a combination thereof:

[1] cut spending spending on senior management salaries and benefits in kind [2] raise revenues by private activities - functions and events, for example. [3] admit a slightly weakened pupil teacher ratio [4] simply absorb the increase from their own reserves or discretionary income [5] charge higher tuition fees

Note that charging higher tuition fees is only one option. But, lets be extremists and imagine it is the only option available:

So, in the extreme event of the latter policy being undertaken alone, Colm McCarthy [An Bord Snip Nua reports, Volume II - Paper 6 – Education and Science] has estimated a resultant increase of fees of the order of 21%.

Obviously phased in over time, this would eventually amount to an increase of €500/year in some schools, with the extreme examples seeing an increase of €2000 per annum. Significant - certainly - but not catastrophic for a lot of families.

Lets go even further. A recent Department of Education report finds no evidence of any likelihood of a significant switch to the public system in the event of the exchequer no longer paying for teachers in fee paying schools.

The Report finds that not one single school would lose more than 60% of its present discretionary income.

The 4 worst affected schools in the state would still have a minimum discretionary income of between €145,000 and €335,000. Maybe a few of them would move over to the public system. So we may be looking at about 4 casualties.

So please, tell me where you are getting your figures.

Those reports deal with a reduction in state funding not a complete removal.

According to the last census, there were just over 1m students in the country. The total cost per head was approx 8,200euro per year.

So the cost of the 30,000 students in private education per year is about 240m, but the state is getting away with paying approx 100m euro, meaning a saving of 140 million euro.

Zubeneschamali

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What evidence are you employing?

Reports in the papers like this one suggest that private schools get €90m from the taxpayer and €115m from fees. The report you cite says it's €101m/119m, or 45% of their income.

Fees would have to double to cover that, and then they would lose students, and fees would have to increase further to cover those losses unless cuts are made which would make the school less attractive and so on.

The report you are citing is talking about something else entirely: it estimates what a reduction in state subsidy so that the state covers teachers at a 28:1 ratio compared to the current 21:1 would cost the private/subsidised schools.

This is way, way less than what ending the subsidy would cost them. If private schools had to do entirely without tax-payers money, I doubt there would be 10 left in the whole country, maybe not even 5.

PRAF

DanDan6592 wrote: »

How is the system not already fair? If parents can afford to spend extra on their childrens education by sending them to a private (or semi-private if you prefer) then they should be allowd. It saves the state money and they get what they believe to be a better education for their child.

I fail how removing this option makes things "fairer".

With respect, you are incorrectly framing the debate here. It isn't about whether private schools should be "allowed" or not, or whether grinds should be allowed or not. Again, this is not some totalitarian regime here, we are a free society and people are allowed to do as they please (within reasonable parameters of safety, decency, etc.).

The debate is about whether the state should continue to subsidise private education. Personally I believe that that €100m could be better spent. In terms of educational return, could you spend €100m in a better way for the benefit of all society. For example, could you spend it on computers, more special needs teachers, more extra curricular activities, breakfast clubs, more books, etc.

As far as I can tell, the only valid argument for retaining the status quo is the risk that changing the system overnight could lead to a sudden requirement for the state to have to pay more if (and it is a huge IF) all 55 or so private schools decided to go public the next day. As others have pointed out, that scenario is unlikely, and again as others have argued the impact may well be short term but with medium and long term gains.

To manage that short term risk you could make the required changes gradually, by reducing the subsidy given to private schools say over a 10 year period.

p1akuw47h5r3it

PRAF wrote: »

With respect, you are incorrectly framing the debate here. It isn't about whether private schools should be "allowed" or not, or whether grinds should be allowed or not. Again, this is not some totalitarian regime here, we are a free society and people are allowed to do as they please (within reasonable parameters of safety, decency, etc.).

The debate is about whether the state should continue to subsidise private education. Personally I believe that that €100m could be better spent. In terms of educational return, could you spend €100m in a better way for the benefit of all society. For example, could you spend it on computers, more special needs teachers, more extra curricular activities, breakfast clubs, more books, etc.

As far as I can tell, the only valid argument for retaining the status quo is the risk that changing the system overnight could lead to a sudden requirement for the state to have to pay more if (and it is a huge IF) all 55 or so private schools decided to go public the next day. As others have pointed out, that scenario is unlikely, and again as others have argued the impact may well be short term but with medium and long term gains.

To manage that short term risk you could make the required changes gradually, by reducing the subsidy given to private schools say over a 10 year period.

One poster stated that they don't believe parents should be able to buy educational advantages for their children, hence where the grinds came in. Another stated they would simply take private property and make it public property. That sounds totalitarian to me. I do note your point however.

The point is the government saves more than 100 million due to the subsidy. So they would not be able to choose we're to spend that extra money. It would have to go on new buildings and the cost of running those buildings

VinLieger

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Lets be clear, we won't even talk in half measures.

Lets say 100% of schools, at 9am tomorrow morning, unanimously entered the free fee scheme.

Between current capital loan repayments and recurring grants, it would cost the exchequer approximately €23 million.

That would mean, by the way, that all the facilities that have been built up in some of the most wonderful schools in the country, would suddenly be accessible to kids from all backgrounds, regardless of household finances.

That's actually not a bad deal... for us.

Except, it's a bad deal for the fee charging schools?

Why?

Because to access that €23m, they would have to forego €80 million of private funding.

They would have to be stupid to do this.

Where are you getting this 23 million figure from?

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

Where are you getting this 23 million figure from?

In the report linked earlier from an Bord Snip Nua:

Estimate of Foregone Teachers Allocations €8,206,720
Estimate of Foregone Recurrent Grants €15,346,740

This is the money the Government does not pay the fee paying schools which it would pay them is they joined the free scheme.


The first is related to pupil:teacher ratios, I think, and the second is the capitation grant paid per pupil to cover costs other than teacher salaries.

An Coilean

DanDan6592 wrote: »

So you would forcefully make private property the property of the public? What happened to not living in a totalarian state?

You would at the very least have to buy these schools, and I guess just hope that the owners are willing to sell to the state. Standards would drop if the above did not happen, or at least not increase, social mobility would not increase (for reasons I have already outlined) nor would social equality.

I don't believe I said any such thing. Are you suggesting that if state subsidy was taken away, that the schools that could not compete in the market for enough students to remain open as a fully private school would rather close down than join the public system?

I do not believe that the state has to buy a school that decided to join the public system. For example the report mentions that one of the fee paying schools joined the public system a few years ago, was that school bought by the state?

How is the system not already fair? If parents can afford to spend extra on their childrens education by sending them to a private (or semi-private if you prefer) then they should be allowd. It saves the state money and they get what they believe to be a better education for their child.

They should be allowed to do so, but that does not mear it is fair. It is not fair that the state spends public money to aid one group of children from a background that can afford fees to gain a better education than children from a background that can not afford fees amd the state should stop doing this.

So the cost of the 30,000 students in private education per year is about 240m, but the state is getting away with paying approx 100m euro, meaning a saving of 140 million euro.

There are only 25,500 students in public schools as of 2011, was there a jump of 4500 in the last two years?

The report stated clearly that the money raised in fees is approx 120million.

Now lets suppose the state cuts all funding tomorrow, Several of these schools would be forced to become public as they would not be able to attract enough students on full fees.
Personally I believe that these schools would choose to enter the public system rather than close down in which case the state would not have to buy the school as you suggest, if you can offer evidence to the contrary I would like to see it.
So what is the cost of this going to be? The 120 million raised in fees is used by the schools to pay for the additional teachers and extra features that make them attractive to fee paying parents, if they opted to become public schools the state would not have to maintain the level of funding needed to retain these aditional features. I.e, just because they take in 120 million in fees does not mean that the state would have to pay 120 million extra if they all went public.
There is also the fact that even if all state support is removed, some of them will be able to remain viable as fully private schools and hence cost the state nothing and reducing the 120 million of potential state cost still further.

If state funding was removed from private schools it would cost the state aditional money, but there is no reason I can see that it would cost more than 80 million or so at the very most which in the context of the education budget is small beans.