Access to Education

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.

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.