Should Private Schools be Closed?

dotsman · 02-12-2016 01:31PM

Augeo wrote: »

Seriously?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

57%? Where is that figure coming from?

See below...

dotsman wrote: »

As Grayson has already stated, all religious schools are private. See here for more details...

Well, if it appears wrong to people with socialist leanings, then it's probably the best thing to do!.

the parents of those attending fee-paying schools are already paying for non-fee-paying schools. Often, many, many times over. Closing fee-paying schools would leave a massive shortfall in the education budget.

Of course they can be, and are, private, regardless of fees. Fees are often dispersed from the fee-paying private schools to the non-fee-paying private schools. But they are all private.

animaal · 02-12-2016 01:48PM

The Irish education system is ultimately a level playing field. The outcome depends entirely on an anonymous set of exams, the same for every student. The grades awarded depend entirely on the knowledge shown by the pupil, with no reference to contacts or societal position.

As to how the student obtains the knowledge - this will never be the same for everybody. Different people have different advantages and disadvantages. There are fee-paying schools, home schooling, foreign schools. Should we aim to eliminate all but the single weakest schooling method in the interests of "equality"?

Mary's dad is a scientist, and is willing to help his daughter with Physics. Is this inequal?
Pat's dad isn't a scientist, but has the funds to pay for Physics grinds. How about this?
Anne's mother is willing to pay extra for a school to provides extra supports in particular areas.

Some say there's no problem with fee paying schools once they get no state support. Why? The state subsidises public policing. If I live in an apartment block that has a private security guard, should I be denied service by the gardai?

The state should provide services to all citizens, particularly where those services are legally mandated (e.g. education). To prevent people from spending their (taxed) money to improve themselves is crazy.

nice_guy80 · 02-12-2016 02:24PM

How many special needs kids are able to enroll at private schools?

immediately the children and staff there have an advantage because they don't have to make allowance for much lower abilities and pupils with special learning needs

nice_guy80 · 02-12-2016 02:25PM

the private schools definitely shouldn't be getting the full cost of teaching staff covered by the state

they can then spend their tuition fees on hiring extra staff

josha1 · 02-12-2016 02:30PM

nice_guy80 wrote: »

How many special needs kids are able to enroll at private schools?

immediately the children and staff there have an advantage because they don't have to make allowance for much lower abilities and pupils with special learning needs

Well I know of at least two private schools that have kids with learning disabilities including SEVERE dyslexia, as well as Asperger's, ADD/ADHD etc. They are all provided adequate care, mainly by staff not provided for by the state, but rather by the child's own parents, as well as the parent's of those without children with disabilities.

In addition, class segregation only occurs when it's in the best interests of the education of the child with the difficulty themselves, i.e. they would be better working in a small class.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the private schools definitely shouldn't be getting the full cost of teaching staff covered by the state

they can then spend their tuition fees on hiring extra staff

They can and do spend their extra tuition fees on hiring extra staff. In fact the state pays for much more staff in public schools, with the likes of SEN teachers, coaches, career guidance etc provided for directly by parents in private schools.

Olishi4 · 02-12-2016 02:43PM

ted1 wrote: »

The state pays for some of the teachers the school hires some teachers directly do as to provide smaller classes/ support teachers or additional subjects.

In my own experience, this was a huge disadvantage to me in my secondary school. We often had long periods where teachers were not available. I specifically remember my German (she moved home) and Art (he was very sick) teachers missing with no replacements for months. The same thing with my Biology teacher and when we did get a replacement, she refused to cover the honours section with us because there were only 4 students taking the honours paper so we just did it ourself without guidance.

Also there were a few students that would have made a small chemistry class. I had achieved an A in junior cert science but chemistry wasn't offered as a subject for leaving cert. I asked my registration teacher about it but they just told me "no chance, we haven't got a teacher for it'.

Just looked it up there and found this from around the same time of my leaving cert around the early 2000's.

https://www.esri.ie/news/who-chooses-science-subject-take-up-in-second-level-schools/

"Science subjects are not available to all students. The vast majority of schools provide biology for Leaving Certificate but a significant minority of schools do not provide Physics and Chemistry. These are mainly smaller schools and those serving more disadvantaged populations"

I hope these are not common themes in public schools who are lacking in resources now.

ted1 · 02-12-2016 02:44PM

nice_guy80 wrote: »

How many special needs kids are able to enroll at private schools?

immediately the children and staff there have an advantage because they don't have to make allowance for much lower abilities and pupils with special learning needs

As many as want too.

Dint mix up what you think happens and what actually happens.

seamus · 02-12-2016 02:46PM

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the private schools definitely shouldn't be getting the full cost of teaching staff covered by the state

they can then spend their tuition fees on hiring extra staff

While this sounds like a reasonable and obvious solution, the problem is context and following that through.

So you take away tuition funding for private schools. What then? The schools have to fund tuition out of their own pockets. For simplicity's sake let's say the average class is 25 kids and the teachers get €50k per annum on average. So every child's tuition must increase by €2k per year. Throw in employer's PRSI, pensions, insurance, etc etc and you're talking €3k realistically.

For many schools this would represent a doubling of the tuition fee per child. Most parents with kids in private school are middle-class, 2-income families for whom the school fees represent a pretty big outgoing. A huge chunk of kids will have to go into the public system. Which means schools will actually have to increase their tuition even more to make up the shortfall. And more kids drop out, etc.

Eventually a balance would be met - a chunk of private schools would close and amalgamate, and a small cohort would keep going to private school @ a cost of €15k per annum.

Short-term pain, long-term gain, right? Well, aside from the public system struggling with the influx of students, you've created a new problem - small private schools with huge tuition fees will be in the privileged position of being able to offer private salaries and benefits to teachers which dwarf those on offer in the public sector. And they take all of the best teachers.

All you've really done then is make the two-tier problem even worse by widening the equality gap. The number of "haves" is less, but the gap between them and everyone else has widened massively.

At least in the present system the equality gap between private and public schools isn't huge.

ted1 · 02-12-2016 02:48PM

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the private schools definitely shouldn't be getting the full cost of teaching staff covered by the state

they can then spend their tuition fees on hiring extra staff

Semi private schools already receive less funding than public schools.

Don't forget that there is no tax relief on school fees. So if the fees are 5k a the state is pulling in an extra 4.5k in taxes so it's costing the parent 9.5 k a year.

02-12-2016 02:55PM

dotsman wrote: »

See below...

Voluntary secondary schools, or just "secondary schools", are owned and managed by religious communities or private organisations. The state funds 90% of teachers' salaries and 95% of other costs. Such schools cater for 57% of secondary pupils.

57% of schools are voluntary schools.
Of that some are private.

Annasopra · 02-12-2016 03:07PM

I find this discussion very strange. There was an alleged sexual assault on a young man with a hockey stick by eight other children and it's also suspected the whole thing was recorded.

I'm really shocked at what happened
I find if disgusting if true that the school did not contact Gardai or Tusla for 4 days.

I dont get at all why the reaction to such an incident is to have a debate on Education funding policy.

seamus · 02-12-2016 03:13PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont get at all why the reaction to such an incident is to have a debate on Education funding policy.

The insinuation is that the incident wasn't reported to the Gardai because a private wanted to protect its reputation.

The OP's assertion being that if it was a public school that wouldn't have happened, therefore should we get rid of private schools.

But you're right in that a discussion around funding policy seems moot when a public school is just as likely to cover up problems to protect its reputation.

02-12-2016 03:17PM

Ah it was just a bit of banter

The Draugan · 02-12-2016 03:27PM

I'd rather send my kids to a private fee paying than community school , so no i wouldn't agree with it.

i wouldnt deny that there were some arseholes in school with me in the private school i went to , people got bullied , but that kind of thing happens everywhere and tbf the school always dealt with it well.

But i am 100% grateful i went there over the community schools where i'm from , they were rough as a badgers hole and lads who i knew were good enough to get good leaving certs didn't because of the environment they were in. Kids from bad family's with bad attitudes who's parents couldn't give a **** , were allowed disrupt classes waste teachers time etc. There was no streaming in those schools so weaker kids were left behind and stronger kids were held back. we were streamed i was never in the top stream but always in the second everyone in my class was at a similar level came from a similar background and ha similar goals so classes tended not to be disrupted.

I would rather my kids were in school with kids from a predominately similar middle class background with parents who care about their education and progression.

over 85% of my year went on to 3rd level , with well over 60% getting their fist choice, it was a record at the time but has been surpassed a number of times since my graduation 6 years ago.

Bridge93 · 02-12-2016 03:37PM

nice_guy80 wrote: »

How many special needs kids are able to enroll at private schools?

immediately the children and staff there have an advantage because they don't have to make allowance for much lower abilities and pupils with special learning needs

In my year of 190 there were was at least 15 if not over 20 kids who required special teaching in core subjects. 4 were severely disabled
There isn't some special entry requirements. You only have to have the means to pay, it's not intelligence or disabilities with a few exceptions like Gonzaga who I think have an entrance exam. gaelscoils have next to no kids with learning difficulties due to the academic requirements. Are they exclusive?

The disparity in disabled kids you'll find is down to parents not wanting to spend large amounts of money on kids education if they perceive it'll be a bit of a 'waste'. Personal choice of parents again as many do sacrifice a lot for the fees and if they think it'll be an academic waste that's their call even if education is more than academivs

Annasopra · 02-12-2016 03:47PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah it was just a bit of banter

A videoed sexual assault with a hockey stick?

Zubeneschamali · 02-12-2016 03:51PM

animaal wrote: »

Some say there's no problem with fee paying schools once they get no state support. Why?

I am fine with my tax money funding education for kids whose parents can't afford to give them a private education. I think free education for all is good for all of society.

I am not fine with my tax money subsidizing education for the kids whose parents are wealthier than I am when poor kids can't avail of it. That's using state money to entrench privilege, not good for all of society.

If parents want to send their kids to a private school, well, OK, but not with my money. Likewise grinds, tutors, exam-prep courses etc.

Zubeneschamali · 02-12-2016 03:54PM

Bridge93 wrote: »

gaelscoils have next to no kids with learning difficulties due to the academic requirements. Are they exclusive?

Yes, horribly exclusive. No travellers, immigrants, asylum seekers, kids with learning difficulties... perfect for the "I'm not a racist, but..." crowd.

josha1 · 02-12-2016 03:55PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am fine with my tax money funding education for kids whose parents can't afford to give them a private education. I think free education for all is good for all of society.

I am not fine with my tax money subsidizing education for the kids whose parents are wealthier than I am when poor kids can't avail of it. That's using state money to entrench privilege, not good for all of society.

If parents want to send their kids to a private school, well, OK, but not with my money. Likewise grinds, tutors, exam-prep courses etc.

But private schools get around half the funding per child as state schools?
So really, parents of those in private schools are subsidising your child's education, as well as the rest of those attending public schools. Are you fine with parents in private schools getting a small percentage of what they put into the tax system for their own kids, or should they fully subsidise children of kids in public schools while reaping no reward?

Zubeneschamali · 02-12-2016 04:05PM

josha1 wrote: »

But private schools get around half the funding per child as state schools?

I am not trying to save the state money here. The way to do that is to abolish free education altogether.

I am saying that if my tax money is spent on it, then everyone gets to use it. If you want a school that keeps out the poors, pay for it yourself, don't ask me to.

If this new "free education" policy costs more because it is fair and free to all, well, of course it does.

maudgonner · 02-12-2016 04:09PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am fine with my tax money funding education for kids whose parents can't afford to give them a private education. I think free education for all is good for all of society.

I am not fine with my tax money subsidizing education for the kids whose parents are wealthier than I am when poor kids can't avail of it. That's using state money to entrench privilege, not good for all of society.

If parents want to send their kids to a private school, well, OK, but not with my money. Likewise grinds, tutors, exam-prep courses etc.

By your logic then nobody who has a child in public education should be able to buy their child grinds? What about extra textbooks? What about letting them have a laptop? Going on educational trips?

The conclusion is that no child in publicly funded education should have any extra educational resources than what the state provides. Which is ridiculous.

josha1 · 02-12-2016 04:10PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am not trying to save the state money here. The way to do that is to abolish free education altogether.

I am saying that if my tax money is spent on it, then everyone gets to use it. If you want a school that keeps out the poors, pay for it yourself, don't ask me to.

If this new "free education" policy costs more because it is fair and free to all, well, of course it does.

I'm not trying to say you were. But you seem/seemed to think that part of your money is going towards 'entrenching privilege', when it is quite clearly the other way around.

Could you clarify what this means :
If this new "free education" policy costs more because it is fair and free to all, well, of course it does.

seamus · 02-12-2016 04:11PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am not trying to save the state money here. The way to do that is to abolish free education altogether.

I am saying that if my tax money is spent on it, then everyone gets to use it. If you want a school that keeps out the poors, pay for it yourself, don't ask me to.

If this new "free education" policy costs more because it is fair and free to all, well, of course it does.

OK, but what will you achieve in reality?

A box-ticking exercise where you can say that you have the illusion of a egalitarian education system?

Geuze · 02-12-2016 04:12PM

Water John wrote: »

I suspect the OP really meant, fee paying schools.

Yes.

Practically all national schools in Ireland are private.

Most secondary schools are also private.

VEC/ETB schools are state-owned.

Zubeneschamali · 02-12-2016 04:13PM

maudgonner wrote: »

By your logic then nobody who has a child in public education should be able to buy their child grinds? What about extra textbooks? What about letting them have a laptop? Going on educational trips?

Not at all. Spend your own money on grinds if you like. Pre-exam prep courses. Private tutors. I have no issues with you spending your money how you like.

But you shouldn't get to spend MY money on any of that stuff.

ted1 · 02-12-2016 04:15PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am fine with my tax money funding education for kids whose parents can't afford to give them a private education. I think free education for all is good for all of society.

I am not fine with my tax money subsidizing education for the kids whose parents are wealthier than I am when poor kids can't avail of it. That's using state money to entrench privilege, not good for all of society.

If parents want to send their kids to a private school, well, OK, but not with my money. Likewise grinds, tutors, exam-prep courses etc.

Who is it your money? The kids parents pay taxes too and more than likely if they are paying a couple of k for fees they are paying more taxes than you.

nice_guy80 · 02-12-2016 04:15PM

ted1 wrote: »

Semi private schools already receive less funding than public schools.

Don't forget that there is no tax relief on school fees. So if the fees are 5k a the state is pulling in an extra 4.5k in taxes so it's costing the parent 9.5 k a year.

but they do get fees from parents
it makes up the shortfall, and more

secondary schools get €170 per pupil from the department to run the school and provide services and facilities

private schools charge thousands

nice_guy80 · 02-12-2016 04:18PM

Many gaelscoils down the country actually take a lot of children from disadvantaged backgrounds and foreign background families

don't presume they all draw pupils from a certain cohort of society

Bridge93 · 02-12-2016 04:18PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am not trying to save the state money here. The way to do that is to abolish free education altogether.

I am saying that if my tax money is spent on it, then everyone gets to use it. If you want a school that keeps out the poors, pay for it yourself, don't ask me to.

If this new "free education" policy costs more because it is fair and free to all, well, of course it does.

THE taxes all the parents past and present at fee paying schools will largely cover their reduced share of the state kitty. Your taxes aren't paying to send some to private school. You're covering the 50% of the population who aren't in the tax bracket

nice_guy80 · 02-12-2016 04:19PM

Bridge93 wrote: »

THE taxes all the parents past and present at fee paying schools will largely cover their reduced share of the state kitty. Your taxes aren't paying to send some to private school. You're covering the 50% of the population who aren't in the tax bracket

the state pays for the teaching staff though
so technically, they are

Bridge93 · 02-12-2016 04:19PM

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Many gaelscoils down the country actually take a lot of children from disadvantaged backgrounds and foreign background families

don't presume they all draw pupils from a certain cohort of society

And so do fee paying schools. My initial comment was in reply to you suggesting they don't.

ted1 · 02-12-2016 04:20PM

Bridge93 wrote: »

gaelscoils have next to no kids with learning difficulties due to the academic requirements. Are they exclusive?

That is utter rubbish, what are these mythical academic requirements? If a kid went to a primary gaelscoil they speak Irish and that's it. It's no different than them going to an English speaking secondary school if they went to an English language primary school.

I know of two kids with Down syndrome who attend Gael scoil

Zubeneschamali · 02-12-2016 04:21PM

seamus wrote: »

OK, but what will you achieve in reality?

A box-ticking exercise where you can say that you have the illusion of a egalitarian education system?

No, a much more egalitarian system in practice.

If the Department announced today that next academic year, all schools in receipt of Department funding for teachers must accept all children free just as Primary schools do, the existing fee-paying schools would almost all join the free scheme, just as most did when it was set up. The fees they charge aren't nearly enough to run their schools, and most parents could not possibly afford to pay that cost.

There would be Blackrock, the Institute and a couple of other fee paying schools left in September. Good luck to them. Everyone else would be in a free school open to all.

ted1 · 02-12-2016 04:22PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, horribly exclusive. No travellers, immigrants, asylum seekers, kids with learning difficulties... perfect for the "I'm not a racist, but..." crowd.

Theres kids whose parents are from Poland , Australia and Asia in my kids schools. A few tanned kids in some of the classes I imagine that they are originally from Africa

dotsman · 02-12-2016 04:24PM

Augeo wrote: »

Voluntary secondary schools, or just "secondary schools", are owned and managed by religious communities or private organisations. The state funds 90% of teachers' salaries and 95% of other costs. Such schools cater for 57% of secondary pupils.

57% of schools are voluntary schools.
Of that some are private.

No, they are all private - they are not owned by the state, they are privately owned. Some are fee-paying, some are not. in many cases, the same religious body will operate both fee-paying and non-fee-paying schools. Some of the fees collected from the fee-paying schools ultimately are used to fund the non-fee-paying ones.

maudgonner · 02-12-2016 04:24PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not at all. Spend your own money on grinds if you like. Pre-exam prep courses. Private tutors. I have no issues with you spending your money how you like.

But you shouldn't get to spend MY money on any of that stuff.

But what's the difference in that and a fee-paying school spending the extra money paid by parents to employ extra teaching resources & buy extra equipment?

ted1 · 02-12-2016 04:25PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am not trying to save the state money here. The way to do that is to abolish free education altogether.

I am saying that if my tax money is spent on it, then everyone gets to use it. If you want a school that keeps out the poors, pay for it yourself, don't ask me to.

If this new "free education" policy costs more because it is fair and free to all, well, of course it does.

If you are worried about spending your taxes on others, look the other way, there is loads of kids in schools whose parents don't pay any tax.

Zubeneschamali · 02-12-2016 04:25PM

ted1 wrote: »

Who is it your money? The kids parents pay taxes too and more than likely if they are paying a couple of k for fees they are paying more taxes than you.

Well, no, I can afford a few k in school fees, I just happen to live outside Dublin, and the fee-paying school racket is not so prevalent here. If I lived in Dublin, I'd probably send my kids to a fee paying school myself - I don't blame the parents for how the system operates.

But we should still fix the system.

josha1 · 02-12-2016 04:27PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, a much more egalitarian system in practice.

If the Department announced today that next academic year, all schools in receipt of Department funding for teachers must accept all children free just as Primary schools do, the existing fee-paying schools would almost all join the free scheme, just as most did when it was set up. The fees they charge aren't nearly enough to run their schools, and most parents could not possibly afford to pay that cost.

There would be Blackrock, the Institute and a couple of other fee paying schools left in September. Good luck to them. Everyone else would be in a free school open to all.

So you do think that parents of those in private schools should fully pay for those in public schools, while no reaping any benefit at all (not even half the benefit as is currently the case.) Stating that taxes should be demanded and then spent in such a way only serves to highlight the chip on your shoulder, as well as the fact that you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word 'equality', which you keep on using.

Like another poster said, if an apartment block's residents hired a private security guard, should they still be entitled to protection from the guardaí? Of course they should!

Bridge93 · 02-12-2016 04:27PM

ted1 wrote: »

That is utter rubbish, what are these mythical academic requirements? If a kid went to a primary gaelscoil they speak Irish and that's it. It's no different than them going to an English speaking secondary school if they went to an English language primary school.

I know of two kids with Down syndrome who attend Gael scoil

Apologies if I have it wrong I'm going off the one at the top of my road. My comment was that fee schools are no more exclusive than gaelscoils where can't rock up in first year with regular levels of Irish and hope to get in. You have to be proficient in the language be that from going to an Irish primary or other means. That is the requirement I am talking about
As such it is no surprise that when the kids show a proficiency in a language it is likely they will excel at other subjects.

Zubeneschamali · 02-12-2016 04:31PM

maudgonner wrote: »

But what's the difference in that and a fee-paying school spending the extra money paid by parents to employ extra teaching resources & buy extra equipment?

Hey, if you think there's no difference, you won't mind when we abolish fees!

But of course there is a difference - the fee-paying schools are using tax subsidies to deepen class differences in society. The fees are not just there to fund the rugby program - they are there to keep the wrong sort out.

And this concentrates the "wrong sort" in the free system, further motivating parents to pay to get their kids out of it. We end up with a fee-paying system and a ghetto.

evolving_doors · 02-12-2016 04:31PM

The school in question isn't a private school.
Thread fail.

Zubeneschamali · 02-12-2016 04:35PM

josha1 wrote: »

if an apartment block's residents hired a private security guard, should they still be entitled to protection from the guardaí? Of course they should!

Sure. I just don't like that they get my tax money to subsidize their private security.

To make it like the guards, we need my model: taxes pay for the free system, like the guards. Everyone can use them. If you want private security, you pay for it yourself, my taxes don't.

ted1 · 02-12-2016 04:37PM

Gebgbegb wrote: »

The school in question isn't a private school.
Thread fail.

Its a semi private school, very very few private schools.

Day Fees 6,895 euro a year
5 day boarding 14,275 euro a year
7 day boarding 15,580 a year

Bridge93 · 02-12-2016 04:38PM

I can only think of one fully private school in the Republic of the top of my head

Zubeneschamali · 02-12-2016 04:38PM

Bridge93 wrote: »

As such it is no surprise that when the kids show a proficiency in a language it is likely they will excel at other subjects.

Proficiency in that particular language also means that they are somewhat paler and less, shall we say, culturally migratory than average.

maudgonner · 02-12-2016 04:39PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sure. I just don't like that they get my tax money to subsidize their private security.

To make it like the guards, we need my model: taxes pay for the free system, like the guards. Everyone can use them. If you want private security, you pay for it yourself, my taxes don't.

The point is that if you pay for private security you get the protection of that as well as the protection of the Gardaí. And why not, you're paying for both.

ted1 · 02-12-2016 04:41PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Proficiency in that particular language also means that they are somewhat paler and less, shall we say, culturally migratory than average.

You'd be surprised.

Like most established schools in the state there are waiting lists to get in, most kids have the names down from the week they are born.

Nothing to do with racism. Just to do with wanting to get in and putting your kids names down early

Zubeneschamali · 02-12-2016 04:46PM

maudgonner wrote: »

The point is that if you pay for private security you get the protection of that as well as the protection of the Gardaí. And why not, you're paying for both.

Yes, and after you leave the free school, you can go and get grinds or tutoring.

But that isn't what you want - you want to take tax money that should go to the guards, free to all, and spend it on subsidizing private security so that you don't have to use the guards.

And then say hey, if we weren't paying half the cost of this security guard, the Garda would have to pay for a whole guard!

Well yes, but then he would work for us all - not just you.

josha1 · 02-12-2016 04:46PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sure. I just don't like that they get my tax money to subsidize their private security.

To make it like the guards, we need my model: taxes pay for the free system, like the guards. Everyone can use them. If you want private security, you pay for it yourself, my taxes don't.

Ok, maybe I should translate it directly, since you don't seem to be very good at hypotheticals.

Private security = funding for SEN, extra teachers, rugby, maintenance etc. Directly paid for by parents in private schools for their own children. In the case of the apartments, it would be paid for directly by the apartment residents, specifically for the apartment residents.

Guards = basic core teachers, that everyone is entitled to. The government pays for these out of the tax pool for both sets of schools, while paying for a lot more, just for public schools.

Your money is in no way going to the private guard/'extras' provided in private schools.

Should Private Schools be Closed?

Comments