Access to Education

VinLieger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

How does that number work? http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/warning-from-feecharging-schools-29111259.html

According to that article there is 25,000 children in private schools around the country costing the state on average 4550 per year. Each child in public school costs on average 8000 per year. Take all of those kids and place them back in public schools and the cost of each of those students on average doubles which comes to 100 million?
How does 100 million become 23 million? Im not arguing that its wrong just curious how the math was done and in work at the moment so dont have time to pick apart that report

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

H Im not arguing that its wrong just curious how the math was done and in work at the moment so dont have time to pick apart that report

The report doesn't show the maths.

Noted from your article:

The JMB, which represents the management of the fee-charging schools, claimed that an independent study from PWC showed the annual cost to the state for a pupil educated in a fee-charging school was 4,552 euro, compared with 8,035 euro in a public school.

So the 8K per pupil figure is not from the dept. but from an "independent" study being used by the private schools to defend themselves.

VinLieger

I honestly thinbk it would work out about even in that case. If the grant was stopped tomorrow and lets say 50% couldnt afford the private schools and went back into the public system thats on average gonna cost 50 million. Then we have schools deciding to go public cus they cant sustain themselves without the fee paying students so the state then needs to pay for the overheads for these schools as well no? So electricity, heating, maintenance, cleaning staff and everything else. Also remember some of these schools might be quite old and would cost more in this regard.
In the long run yes it might cost the state less to scrap the private subsidy but in the short term i honestly cant see how it would work out cheaper.

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

i honestly cant see how it would work out cheaper.

I don't care if it costs more than the existing system, it's a question of fairness. The extra will be spent in schools open to all, the way it should be.

VinLieger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't care if it costs more than the existing system, it's a question of fairness. The extra will be spent in schools open to all, the way it should be.

Ridiculous attitude, of course it matters how much it costs, people who say things like this come across to me as just having a massive chip on their shoulder about private education because its illogical to say it doesnt matter how much it costs

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

people who say things like this come across to me as just having a massive chip on their shoulder about private education

I do have a chip on my shoulder about private education: If parents want my taxes to help pay for their kids education, they can enrol their kids in the same schools as my kids, the kids from the halting site and the ones from the RIA centre.

If they want an elite education, they can buy it themselves with their own money.

Iwasfrozen

VinLieger wrote: »

Ridiculous attitude, of course it matters how much it costs, people who say things like this come across to me as just having a massive chip on their shoulder about private education because its illogical to say it doesnt matter how much it costs

Actually no. There are long term macroeconomic benefits associated with social mobility. Looking only at the short term is short sighted of you.

VinLieger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I do have a chip on my shoulder about private education: If parents want my taxes to help pay for their kids education, they can enrol their kids in the same schools as my kids, the kids from the halting site and the ones from the RIA centre.

If they want an elite education, they can buy it themselves with their own money.

So parents whose children that go to private education dont pay tax?
Also considering parents whose kids go to private education only cost the state half as much, more of they're taxes are going to your kids than their own.
and technically they do buy it themselves with their own money since the taxes they pay go to the subsidy and they then pay fees on top of that.

Seriously you need to get that chip on your shoulder looked at

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually no. There are long term macroeconomic benefits associated with social mobility. Looking only at the short term is short sighted of you.

Thats not what i said, ive agreed all along that reducing or scrapping the subsidy might well be a good thing, but as long as it can be balanced out and not cost more than it currently does which could probably be done if it was spread out over a long period of time instead of tomorrow like alot of chip on shoulder types seem to be demanding.

An Coilean

VinLieger wrote: »

So parents whose children that go to private education dont pay tax?

They do, and that is why they are as entitled to a free education as anyone else.
However they are not entitled to use public money to give their children a better education than the children of parents who can't afford fees.

The state should aim to give all children the same opportunites, it cannot ban private education, but it should not used public money to support it.

VinLieger

An Coilean wrote: »

They do, and that is why they are as entitled to a free education as anyone else.
However they are not entitled to use public money to give their children a better education than the children of parents who can't afford fees.

The state should aim to give all children the same opportunites, it cannot ban private education, but it should not used public money to support it.

Fine I agree but as ive said many times in this thread it cannot and should not be done overnight.

My point there was its ridiculous to say "I dont want my taxes paying for their education" as if they dont pay taxes as well.

Duggys Housemate

VinLieger wrote: »

So parents whose children that go to private education dont pay tax?

they don't pay enough tax to pay for all the teachers in their schools. Hence the government subsidy.

Also considering parents whose kids go to private education only cost the state half as much, more of they're taxes are going to your kids than their own.
and technically they do buy it themselves with their own money since the taxes they pay go to the subsidy and they then pay fees on top of that.

This half as much is statistical chicanery. Per pupil they cost the State as much if they had normal student ratios, they get better student teacher ratios by paying more.

Seriously you need to get that chip on your shoulder looked at

You keep saying that, but its an ad hominem.

That said I don't believe in "equal education" - we need to stream smart people from earlier ages, thats the best way to get smart people from the working classes into peer groups who are academic - like the old grammar schools in the UK.

The worst thing we could do is end the "bias" of free schools towards siblings and offspring of prior students, while maintaining the biases of subsidize private schools. You can't bias by tradition, the State is saying, you can bias by wealth - even if subsidized by the State.

that would be a joke.

An Coilean

VinLieger wrote: »

Fine I agree but as ive said many times in this thread it cannot and should not be done overnight.

My point there was its ridiculous to say "I dont want my taxes paying for their education" as if they dont pay taxes as well.

The talk of if it happens overnight is simply the use of an extreme clear cut case to make a point, if support was wound down over a period of 5-10 years to allow schools to adjust that would not bother me at all.

And its not 'I dont want my taxes paying for their education' it ''I don't want my taxes paying for their unfair advantage over people that can't afford the opportunities they can''.

An Coilean

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

That said I don't believe in "equal education" - we need to stream smart people from earlier ages, thats the best way to get smart people from the working classes into peer groups who are academic - like the old grammar schools in the UK.

Show me the evidence that says this would actually be beneficial overall, and not just to those on the right side of the streaming. Making some better and the rest worse is not a sound education policy.

PRAF

An Coilean wrote: »

Show me the evidence that says this would actually be beneficial overall, and not just to those on the right side of the streaming. Making some better and the rest worse is not a sound education policy.

The Finnish model is widely considered to be one of the best education systems in the world. It relies on a system of public schools without any selecting, tracking, or streaming of students. Their focus seems to be on equality of opportunity. Interestingly, they also provide free meals to full-time students

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

So parents whose children that go to private education dont pay tax?

They don't pay my taxes, they take them to put their kids through Blackrock.

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

My point there was its ridiculous to say "I dont want my taxes paying for their education" as if they dont pay taxes as well.

That would be a ridiculous thing to say.

But no-one said that.

VinLieger

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

This half as much is statistical chicanery. Per pupil they cost the State as much if they had normal student ratios, they get better student teacher ratios by paying more.

How so?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They don't pay my taxes, they take them to put their kids through Blackrock.

Finally you said it, btw to everyone else when im talking about chips on shoulders this was what i meant. Yeah as much as you would like to think they are unfortunately not every child in private education goes to blackrock and is a rugby playing snob.

How are they taking your taxes? Please explain this to me? Are they in cahoots with revenue and department of education that they specifically are taking all the money you pay in tax to pay for their childs education?

Seriously get over yourself and stop playing such a victim.

Everyone else came at this with rationale arguments of fairness or cost but you blatantly just have a problem with people from private education and not the actual idea of it.

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

not every child in private education goes to blackrock and is a rugby playing snob.

But every rugby playing snob who goes to Blackrock gets subsidized to go there.

By me.

Iwasfrozen

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats not what i said, ive agreed all along that reducing or scrapping the subsidy might well be a good thing, but as long as it can be balanced out and not cost more than it currently does which could probably be done if it was spread out over a long period of time instead of tomorrow like alot of chip on shoulder types seem to be demanding.

I don't think you understand me, I'm not talking about savings from cutting subsidies slowly, I'm talking about the economic benefits to society of making sure the smartest get into the top positions. And not just the sons or daughters of wealthy people.

VinLieger

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't think you understand me, I'm not talking about savings from cutting subsidies slowly, I'm talking about the economic benefits to society of making sure the smartest get into the top positions. And not just the sons or daughters of wealthy people.

I do understand that and i agree we need the right people in the right jobs and not just those with wealthy parents but i dont think it could possibly happen right now IF it ultimately did end up costing more in the short term. Partly due to cost which i doubt the government would be willing to pay but also the system would not be ready to handle it. I think it could work if as suggested by An Coileann above its spread out over 5-10 years and let the system adapt gently instead of a sudden shock.

Cody Pomeray

The argument in favour of prolonging state subsidies for private education is almost entertaining for how left-wing it is.

The theory necessarily employs the principle of universal dependence.

That no matter who you are, or what your income is, the services you employ over your lifetime must involve a universal minimum contribution from the state, even if they are not state services.

I think that's incredible.

It's the exact equivalent of saying:

"I may have a job and be in full, profitable employment, but since some individuals draw the dole, I too want the first part of my salary founded on Dole payments. Anything I make thereafter I will continue to enjoy".

It is bizarre. I never imagined so many people could have such an attitude of brazen entitlement.

Cody Pomeray

VinLieger wrote: »

Where are you getting this 23 million figure from?

€23 million is what the approximate cost to the state if, bizarrely, every single school entered the free fees scheme and ceased charging mandatory fees.

As I said, that could actually be quite a good deal for the state, considering the wonderful facilities in many such schools.

I think Blackrock college would make a fantastic cente for autistic children.

PRAF

According to the Indo there is a widening gap in access to third level education. Pupils in fee-charging schools and those who receive an all-Irish education are most likely to go straight to college from school. The others have much lower levels of tranisitioning into third level. In particular, it seems that those from disadvantaged areas are getting left behind.

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/widening-gap-in-twotier-school-system-is-revealed-29246471.html

I don't think it'll ever be possible to fully level the playing field. However, hopefully we can move towards a fairer system in years to come. In the case of disadvantaged areas, this may mean giving them more resources so that they can begin to close the gap

Duggys Housemate

The difference between the fee paying schools (66%) and the lowest level non-vocational schools(42%) is 20%.

Even the most disadvantaged schools send 24% of people to university ( which is distinguished from other 3rd level vocational courses). Back in the 80's that was the percentage which went to college. In the 70's it was 10%.

If the figures were 80% and 5% we would have real discrimination.

University should be for people of above average intelligence. If we force 70% of people into universities then you will need a university degree for McDonalds.

Zubeneschamali

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

University should be for people of above average intelligence.

Exactly: not just for children of people who can afford to send their kids to fee-charging tax-subsidized schools.

VinLieger

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The difference between the fee paying schools (66%) and the lowest level non-vocational schools(42%) is 20%.

Even the most disadvantaged schools send 24% of people to university ( which is distinguished from other 3rd level vocational courses). Back in the 80's that was the percentage which went to college. In the 70's it was 10%.

If the figures were 80% and 5% we would have real discrimination.

University should be for people of above average intelligence. If we force 70% of people into universities then you will need a university degree for McDonalds.

Private schooling does not = automatically intelligent

Duggys Housemate

VinLieger wrote: »

Private schooling does not = automatically intelligent

Whose strawman argument are you arguing against?

Clearly not by the way - since despite the advantages 34% don't get to University. However that's orthogonal to the argument that we have too many people at university.

Cody Pomeray

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Even the most disadvantaged schools send 24% of people to university ( which is distinguished from other 3rd level vocational courses).

You're making a balls of that


Higher education includes ITs and colleges. The article doesn't mention universities and the report doesn't distinguish universities from colleges or ITs.

Duggys Housemate

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're making a balls of that


Higher education includes ITs and colleges. The article doesn't mention universities and the report doesn't distinguish universities from colleges or ITs.

I include ITs in 3rd level. It said that after leaving cert 50% went to higher level and 24% beyond that to post leaving cert courses.

Cody Pomeray

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I include ITs in 3rd level. It said that after leaving cert 50% went to higher level and 24% beyond that to post leaving cert courses.

this is the 'balls' i was relating

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Even the most disadvantaged schools send 24% of people to university ( which is distinguished from other 3rd level vocational courses).

University should be for people of above average intelligence. If we force 70% of people into universities then you will need a university degree for McDonalds.

SupaNova2

The line repeated that nobody should have an educational advantage over the "working class" might as well be rephrased we should make society poorer.

Iwasfrozen

SupaNova2 wrote: »

The line repeated that nobody should have an educational advantage over the "working class" might as well be rephrased we should make society poorer.

Nope, the two ideas aren't even related.

PRAF

Nobody's arguing for bringing everyone down to the lowest level of educational attainment. That would clearly be ridiculous. There is, in my opinion, a strong argument for reducing the subsidy given to private schools. It isn't about banning anything, outlawing anything, or forcing anything to shut down. It's also not about dumbing down the system. It is simply about creating a level playing field (or at least a less unfair system) so that all young people have a decent opporunity of getting higher level education

SupaNova2

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope, the two ideas aren't even related.

Do you think the overall standard of education attained a population would be better by having less people attend private schools?

Cody Pomeray

PRAF wrote: »

It is simply about creating a level playing field (or at least a less unfair system) so that all young people have a decent opporunity of getting higher level education

I think that might be the motivation for some people (and fair play if it is and everything).

I don't mind so much that the playing field is not level. For every €x the Government spends on education, there will always be a businessman somewhere saying "your kid can get an advantage on the others for an extra €x"

Private schools will always have the advantage under any non-Swedish model.

We could at least not add insult to injury by asking the state to pay so much money toward that advantage.

SupaNova2

PRAF wrote: »

It isn't about... forcing anything to shut down. It's also not about dumbing down the system. It is simply about creating a level playing field (or at least a less unfair system) so that all young people have a decent opporunity of getting higher level education

Well this is exactly what removing the subsidy would do, force a number of schools to close and the students that attended/would have attended into a public school of generally lesser quality. And this idea of leveling the playing field doesn't make sense. The parents of those students that would be forced into the public system would have extra cash to put toward extra classes and grinds.

Some people will always have an advantage over others, forget level playing fields, the children of parents who work as teachers will have an advantage over the children of parents who work menial factory jobs, the children of parents who sacrifice holidays/cars/nights out etc to put their children through better education will have an advantage over those who don't, and yes the filthy rich will have an advantage over those on the lowest incomes.

Cody Pomeray

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Well this is exactly what removing the subsidy would do, force a number of schools to close and the students that attended/would have attended into a public school of generally lesser quality.

Well then just reduce the subsidy until an acceptable number of private schools are still buoyant.

The Department of Education/ Bord Snip reports suggest there is substantial wiggle room there.

Zubeneschamali

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Well this is exactly what removing the subsidy would do, force a number of schools to close and the students that attended/would have attended into a public school of generally lesser quality.

Why would they close instead of joining the free scheme, the way most schools which used to charge fees joined back when it was set up?

SupaNova2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why would they close instead of joining the free scheme, the way most schools which used to charge fees joined back when it was set up?

It would be interesting to know numbers on this? What is most and where does it come from?

nice_guy80

Private schooled children cost the government half of what its costs to send a child to public school. This is due to the extra parents choose to spend on their child in exchange for a better teacher ratio, better facilities, extra curriculars etc. So in reality since every child is entitled to free education through the taxes their parents pay these parents are actually subsidising the government and not the other way around.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong

no INDEPENDENT study has come to that conclusion (only the study carried out by the private schools themselves, which nobody else has seen)

nice_guy80

hfallada wrote: »

Private primary schools receive no state funding. But private secondary schools do receive a contribution to wages. Have you ever been to a private school? A majority of them have middle class families who have decide not to go on foreign holidays and replace the car every 3 years like most parents who send their children to public schools. Removing state funding will only increase costs to tax payer as students leave the private system

this is a fallacy

if numbers of students in the private sector decrease, then there'd be more money to fund public school places
simples

PRAF

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Well this is exactly what removing the subsidy would do, force a number of schools to close and the students that attended/would have attended into a public school of generally lesser quality. And this idea of leveling the playing field doesn't make sense. The parents of those students that would be forced into the public system would have extra cash to put toward extra classes and grinds.

If certain schools cannot survive as private schools without massive taxpayer subsidies then it is only right that they go back to the public system. Otherwise, joe taxpayer (inlcuding the 93% of parents whose kids go to public schools) is subsidising the 7% whose kids can go private.

I personally dislike grinds. They promote teaching to the exam, further embed the points race culture, and are the very antithesis of what real education should be about. However, I'd never propose a ban on them. I'd prefer if the public system was good enough (and the 3rd level entry process tweaked) so that rote learning was de-emphasised and therefore demand for grinds was lessened. In reality that will never happen but that's a debate for another day

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Some people will always have an advantage over others, forget level playing fields, the children of parents who work as teachers will have an advantage over the children of parents who work menial factory jobs, the children of parents who sacrifice holidays/cars/nights out etc to put their children through better education will have an advantage over those who don't, and yes the filthy rich will have an advantage over those on the lowest incomes.

I agree that there will always be some element of inequity in education, some element of 'unfairness'. However, given the unjust nature of that inequity it would be remiss of any govt to ignore it. If there will always be a natural advantage for the groups you mention, then why should the state make it worse by providing massive subsidies to a privileged elite.

Even if we were to ignore the justice and equality argument, there is a more fundamental point. One of the fundamental roles of any education system is to ensure that all kids fulfil their potential. This means we get a more educated and productive workforce. This in turn leads to a more efficient and productive economy. On what level is the current system justified if a whole swathe of the population are seriously disadvantaged when it comes to access to 3rd level education. The current system is akin to educational doping.

Wildlife Actor

nice_guy80 wrote: »

this is a fallacy

if numbers of students in the private sector decrease, then there'd be more money to fund public school places
simples

??

Surely the reason the numbers in the private schools fall is because they switch to public schools. Therefore there cannot be a saving.

If you're presenting that statement as a good outcome, it's one borne of envy, not economics.

Cody Pomeray

Love nor Money wrote: »

If you're presenting that statement as a good outcome, it's one borne of envy, not economics.

Why

The opposite of economically sound is not... envy

Wildlife Actor

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Why

The opposite of economically sound is not... envy

I'm not saying it's the opposite to economically sound. But economics justifies change. Envy does not.

Cody Pomeray

Love nor Money wrote: »

I'm not saying it's the opposite to economically sound. But economics justifies change. Envy does not.

No but where are you getting a motivation of "envy" from specifically?

fly_agaric

Love nor Money wrote: »

??
I'm not saying it's the opposite to economically sound. But economics justifies change. Envy does not.

I dunno, maybe recognising injustice can begin with a little envy [of say, the superior facilities of state-topped-up private schools compared to your average fully state funded (ex. semi voluntary assistance from parents) school!]

Anyway we (the Irish) seem to like this concept of "special" citizens getting state services & benefits which they can improve by adding their own money (see the heath system),

SupaNova2

PRAF wrote: »

If certain schools cannot survive as private schools without massive taxpayer subsidies then it is only right that they go back to the public system. Otherwise, joe taxpayer (inlcuding the 93% of parents whose kids go to public schools) is subsidising the 7% whose kids can go private.

Who is subsidizing who isn't so clear, we agree that a lot of people who send their children to private schools are well off, so in a progressive tax system they are already subsidizing the less well off by contributing more tax.

Cody Pomeray

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Who is subsidizing who isn't so clear, we agree that a lot of people who send their children to private schools are well off, so in a progressive tax system they are already subsidizing the less well off by contributing more tax.

That's debatable actually, but nevertheless, what's the point?

Even if high income earners are ultimately subsidizing the less well off, then I guess that's just Government's policy - just like tax compliance, law abidance, and all that other good stuff everyone loves.

You don't get to use "hey I'm compliant, gimme a free ride on stuff" as a valid argument.

PRAF

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Who is subsidizing who isn't so clear, we agree that a lot of people who send their children to private schools are well off, so in a progressive tax system they are already subsidizing the less well off by contributing more tax.

Yes, richer people generally pay more taxes (well those on the PAYE system do anyway). However, you could argue that they also benefit more. Think of spending on defence and policing. Defending the country and defending property rights benefits everyone. However, the rich have more assets and thus have more to gain from govt spending on those areas. Ditto tax breaks for private pensions, the rich benefit more.

Also, while our income tax system is largely progressive, the other heads of tax are much less so. Our high rates of VAT, excise duty, and various stealth taxes all disproprotionally affect the poor.