Should state subsidisation of Irish private schools continue?

Dudess

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

sink wrote: »

I think you have a stereotypical view of private school kids and you're holding some sort of grudge.

Maybe read the rest of my post? Also, on what is the "grudge" assumption based? It always gets trotted out but there never seems to be much or any thinking behind it. Oh and it also comes across as really supercilious and just helps reinforce the stereotype of the stuck-up private school pupil in a "oh the peasants are jealous of us" kinda way (which I know is hardly ever the case, I said that - the vast majority of people you meet in life: it's difficult to tell whether they went to a private or state school). What is there to bear a grudge about anyway?

I see private schools as unnecessary - a luxury, therefore I don't agree with state funding of them. It's quite straightforward - does it really have to be read into and declared "begrudgery"? Because it really, really isn't.
The one advantage private schools seem to offer is smaller class sizes - and whether this is an advantage is, in my opinion anyway, subjective.

Jammyc

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Minstrel27 wrote: »

Absolutely not. Sea rescue in the South East is being limited to a daytime service because apparently the government cannot afford it so they shouldn't be able to afford this.

Sure we dont even have a fire service here in Greystones. Just a few people around that have trained and volunteer to go if they get a call at home. No pay for them. No sign of a proper fire service any time soon either. Yet a lot of people in our weary town send their kids off these private schools. Priorities are all over the gaf.

sink

Dudess wrote: »

Maybe read the rest of my post? Also, on what is the "grudge" assumption based? It always gets trotted out but there never seems to be much or any thinking behind it. Oh and it also comes across as really supercilious and just helps reinforce the stereotype of the stuck-up private school pupil in a "oh the peasants are jealous of us" kinda way (which I know is hardly ever the case, I said that - the vast majority of people you meet in life: it's difficult to tell whether they went to a private or state school). What is there to bear a grudge about anyway?

I see private schools as unnecessary - a luxury, therefore I don't agree with state funding of them. It's quite straightforward - does it really have to be read into and declared "begrudgery"? Because it really, really isn't.
The one advantage private schools seem to offer is smaller class sizes - and whether this is an advantage is, in my opinion anyway, subjective.

I enjoyed my time in private school, I got to do many things that I otherwise would never have done. If the state didn't pay for part of it, I don't think my parents could have afforded to send me. I would say the it's the same for the majority of my schoolmates, few would have been rich enough. I don't think it necessarily provided me with an advantage academically, but it did broaden my horizons and allowed me to experience more. I don't know why you think I shouldn't have been provided with the opportunity.

If the state wasn't paying for my teachers in private school they still would have to pay for my teachers in public school. The only difference would be the extra activities that were provided by my school and that my parents were paying extra for would not have been available to me. Basically the way I see it you would prefer I had been denied the extra opportunities.

Dudess

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

But what extras do private schools offer?

sink

Dudess wrote: »

But what extras to private schools offer?

We had flood lit pitches, indoor heated swimming pool, full size indoor basketball court, fully kitted out gym, 300 seated theatre, a large library, modern computer facilities, pottery, carpentry, wood turning, electronics. Sports included rugby, hockey, cricket, basket ball, swimming, canoeing, rowing, tennis, badminton and golf. Not to mention the boarding facilities.

Dudess

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

But these can be offered by state schools too.

sink

Dudess wrote: »

But these can be offered by state schools too.

How is the government going to pay for all that for every school in the country?

Dudess

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Well it doesn't, but such state schools do exist, in the same way as some private schools lacking in such facilities also exist.

sink

Dudess wrote: »

well it doesn't, but such state schools do exist, in the same way as some private schools lacking in such facilities also exist.

And you reckon that if private school funding was cut every school in country could afford equally good facilities? Don't forget about all the kids whose parents couldn't afford the fees any longer would go to public schools and the state would still be paying for their education. I don't see how.

El Siglo

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Private should mean exactly that, private. No state intervention in anyway whatsoever. Teachers in private schools should not be paid by the state, they work for a private entity. What would happen if the state started paying the wages of Tesco staff? It would be anti-competitive, Tesco could further reduce prices on good and price out the competition while still turning a tidy profit. Same rules should apply to private schools. They are private entities, and if someone wants their child to learn in these places then they should incur the full costs of such education. It's anti-competitive for the state to fund these schools through teachers wages and if you think I'm wrong, what's the feeder rate for say Gonzaga or Clongowes to UCD and TCD? Then compare this to the feeder rate of say a VEC School Co. Kildare (I went to one). Trust me, the Tesco analogy is highly applicable here.
Personally, I think they're a waste of money. It's just something for people with too much money, not enough sense and delusions of grandeur to send their children to these schools. The experience might be more 'rounded' like meeting foreigners etc... but does that mean that a child going to a state school has any less of a rounded experience? If you want to spend your money wisely on education, pay for a good Maths, Irish, German/French grinds teacher.

ascanbe

The pissing match which has developed between some posters about the relative merits of public and private schools, as currently constitued in this country, is irrelevant to the question asked and the opinion posited by the OP.
The question is should the state continue to subsidise 'private' schools.

gingelion

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

I havent read any of the other posts. This is news to me and im disgusted that this happens.

I say this because i think(and thought) private schools should be funded by the people who choose to pay for their kids to go there. Why should anyones tax money go to pay for better facilities for kids going to private schools when their own kids go to public schools and dont get the same. I cant believe theres even a debate here.


And what about using half that €100m to fund special needs education? Since the celtic tiger blah, blah, blah this country has steadily decreased all funding for anyone with even the slightest bit of disability. Its wrong.

Whats im saying is, i dont think the state should give even a penny to the private schools.

Outrage

The irony is that if you take away state funding for private schools, they'll become even more exclusive.

Personally, I think a homogenised education system is a bad thing. I don't want my kids educated in Columbine High.

Outrage

Rebelheart wrote: »

As for "better education", Coláiste Eoin and Coláiste Iosagáin, two public schools albeit with a 17-year waiting list, provide an education far better than the one provided by the religious of Blackrock or Belvedere, and all their notions to mimic Eton and Harrow at one-sixth of the cost (Harrow fees: c. £28,000; Eton fees: c. £28,000: Blackrock: c. €5,500). The cultural world of Blackrock and Belvedere (and the rest of them) is so blatantly playing to a power dynamic of the 19th century where the British Empire and British sports like rugby were there to be mimicked.

Do you really think comparing the fees day boys pay at Blackrock vs. the fees that boarders pay at Eton is a fair comparison?

ascanbe

Outrage wrote: »

Do you really think comparing the fees day boys pay at Blackrock vs. the fees that boarders pay at Eton is a fair comparison?

He is writing about the ethos of these schools and the reason for their founding; again, i feel, this is irrelevant to the initial question.
Private schools in Britain, as far as i'm aware, are just that; private.
They are not subsidised by the state; this is the reason for the prohibitively high fees.

Outrage

ascanbe wrote: »

He is writing about the ethos of these schools and the reason for their founding; again, i feel, this is irrelevant to the initial question.
Private schools in Britain, as far as i'm aware, are just that; private.
They are not subsidised by the state; this is the reason for the prohibitively high fees.

No. He plucked some figures off the internet and tried to mislead the discussion by presenting an unfair comparison. Must try harder.

seraphimvc

this learnt me another shocking fact of ireland

i have wondered how did sh!t happened in the 1st place?

ascanbe

Outrage wrote: »

No. He plucked some figures off the internet and tried to mislead the discussion by presenting an unfair comparison. Must try harder.

I don't know where he got those figures; whether he 'plucked' them off the internet or not.
I don't know if they are correct or not.
My point is that they're irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Irish state should subsidise 'private' schools in Ireland.
By the way, i think it was the poster you are referring to who started the discussion in the first place; so i don't think you can say he is misleading the discussion.
He has got pointlessly sidetracked, though.

Outrage

ascanbe wrote: »

I don't know where he got those figures; whether he 'plucked' them off the internet or not.
I don't know if they are correct or not.
My point is that they're irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Irish state should subsidise 'private' schools in Ireland.
By the way, i think it was the poster you are referring to who started the discussion in the first place; so i don't think you can say he is misleading the discussion.
He has got pointlessly sidetracked, though.

Here: I'll make life easy for you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_College#Charitable_status_and_fees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackrock_College#Status_and_operation

He has mislead the discussion by trying to compare boarding fees to day fees.

ascanbe

Outrage wrote: »

Here: I'll make life easy for you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_College#Charitable_status_and_fees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackrock_College#Status_and_operation

He has mislead the discussion by trying to compare boarding fees to day fees.

You're missing the point.
A comparison between the fees needed to attend Eton College in England and the fees needed to attend Blackrock College in Ireland is irrelevant to the question.
The question being; should the Irish state subsidise 'private' schools?

Outrage

I'm sure parents who have the motivation to send their children to fee-paying schools would gladly pay that little bit extra to free themselves of the tentacles of socialism interfering in their child's education and pay a little bit extra again to fund a scholarship scheme for disadvantaged children.

ascanbe

Outrage wrote: »

I'm sure parents who have the motivation to send their children to fee-paying schools would gladly pay that little bit extra to free themselves of the tentacles of socialism interfering in their child's education and pay a little bit extra again to fund a scholarship scheme for disadvantaged childre

If you are wary of the 'tentacles of socialism' then surely you should be railing against the states role in providing anything for people; you should especially be disgusted by the fact that the state interferes/subsidises 'private' schools.
'Fund a scholarship scheme for disadvantaged children'?; the states role should be to ensure that every child has the right to a basic education.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that those who advocate for private schools are misunderstood philanthropists?
I find that laughable but i digress; if they are, indeed, philanthropists, then they shouldn't be relying on the state to aid them in their largesse.
Kind of misses the point.

themont85

Rebelheart wrote: »

No, he wasn't. Nobody - not a single person - here has given evidence for these supposed "costs" of moving to the state sector. Please give us them, as you evidently have them.



They do, and they do. Fair point.



Now, above all points made on this thread in defence of fee-paying schools this has not been supported by a single statistic. Not one. Where is your evidence? You can't make claims like that in this day and age without a reference.You can thank Donogh O'Malley for that - oops.



Where is your evidence for this claim?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0126/education.html?radiobutton=Google


Exact same thing happens in France;

Private schools are either “sous contrat” (where the government pays the teachers’ salaries and the school follows the national curriculum and schedule) or “hors contrat” (not subsidised by the government and free to set its own curriculum).
Schools which are “sous contrat” ask parents to pay a relatively modest annual fee, as low as €400 per annum. Bear in mind that these fees don’t include lunches, registration fees, transport, materials etc.
Those “hors contrat” schools have annual fees that are more in common with private schools anywhere in the world and can average between about €8,000 to €15,000 per year.

http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-education/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=95


There are two types of private schools in Germany, Ersatzschulen (literally: substitute schools) and Ergänzungsschulen (literally: auxiliary schools). There are also private Hochschulen (private colleges and universities) in Germany, but similar to the UK, the term private school is almost never used of universities or other tertiary institutions.
Ersatzschulen are ordinary primary or secondary schools, which are run by private individuals, private organizations or religious groups. These schools offering the same types of diplomas like public schools. Ersatzschulen lack the freedom to operate completely outside of government regulation. Teachers at Ersatzschulen must have at least the same education and at least the same wages like teachers at public schools, an Ersatzschule must have at least the same academic standards like a public school and Article 7, Paragraph 4 of the Grundgesetz, also forbids segregation of pupils according to the means of their parents (the so called Sondierungsverbot). Therefore, most Ersatzschulen have very low tuition fees and/or offer scholarships, compared to most other Western European countries. However, it is not possible to finance these schools with such low tuition fees, that's why all German Ersatzschulen are additionally financed with public funds.
Ergänzungsschulen are secondary or post-secondary (non-tertiary) schools, which are run by private individuals, private organizations or rarely, religious groups and offer a type of education which is not available at public schools. Most of these schools are vocational schools. However, these vocational schools are no part of the German dual education system. Ergänzungsschulen have the freedom to operate outside of government regulation and are funded in whole by charging their students tuition fees.

The question has been and always will be-should Ireland continue to pay teachers in this school.

I don't really want to go on much more about this because it goes in circles. My main points are though that;

-Parents pay taxes. They save the state money by not going into the free sector. The capitation grants and other government grants are saved from these students and the Government should be putting this into free schools, I personally doubt they do though. The absolute cost of paying teachers in private schools is clear as these schools have been as of 2007/2008 at max capacity and therefore it is clear what is needed to pay them. There is no more 'waste' in paying them than the free sector, in fact there is probably less as enrollments didn't fluctuate in these schools as much as they did in some free ones.
-We cannot eliminate private schools. If you want to then we need to make a constitutional ammendment. If we do watch;
a)more IoE like Grind Schools.
b)more than the very few actually elite schools here been created
c)two tiered teaching service, the very best are hoovered up to the private. Trade unions would absolutely hate that.

As regards the 2.1 mill spent on capital projects I entirely disagree with this as I have stated earlier.

The goal posts has moved on this though. The State has already moved the pupil teacher ratio from 1:18 to 1:20, therefore the state no longer actually pays the same minimum staff teacher ratio in puplic and fee paying schools. This means support should be about 89 million nowadays, however, this could go down if we see a drop off in the numbers in the fee paying sector, note however any fall in that 89m will be negated by the fact that the state may have to increase the total on teachers in free schools and now have to pay the capitation grants so actually costing the state money. I don't believe that there is a massive withdrawel (as of the current cut in the grant) from these schools but if the example of Gonzaga in D6 is anything to go by (they have increased fees from 3,400 to just over 5,000 in the space of 2 academic years), then there will be a drop off if the dole lines don't decrease and the state cuts more.

themont85

Just to add to my above post is the McCarthy Report which included obviousely Colm McCarthy and experts in the field of taxation and various other experts. They recommended cutting it by 25 million. If it was truely cost efficent to cut the entire 100m I think this report which recommended some savage cuts would include this on its 'wish list'. But it didn't. I guess they feel you can cut it by 25m and we won't see a reduction in enrollment in these schools. We shall see what the 10m will do, all I can say is that I have heard anecdotally from friends ect that going into the free sector is the plan for their kid where as before it was fee paying all the way. Of course I cannot prove that but it cannot be ignored that the 20 somethings without jobs at the minute will be looking at the state more and more for support for however long this recession goes on.

ascanbe

themont85 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0126/education.html?radiobutton=Google


Exact same thing happens in France;

Private schools are either “sous contrat” (where the government pays the teachers’ salaries and the school follows the national curriculum and schedule) or “hors contrat” (not subsidised by the government and free to set its own curriculum).
Schools which are “sous contrat” ask parents to pay a relatively modest annual fee, as low as €400 per annum. Bear in mind that these fees don’t include lunches, registration fees, transport, materials etc.
Those “hors contrat” schools have annual fees that are more in common with private schools anywhere in the world and can average between about €8,000 to €15,000 per year.

http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-education/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=95


There are two types of private schools in Germany, Ersatzschulen (literally: substitute schools) and Ergänzungsschulen (literally: auxiliary schools). There are also private Hochschulen (private colleges and universities) in Germany, but similar to the UK, the term private school is almost never used of universities or other tertiary institutions.
Ersatzschulen are ordinary primary or secondary schools, which are run by private individuals, private organizations or religious groups. These schools offering the same types of diplomas like public schools. Ersatzschulen lack the freedom to operate completely outside of government regulation. Teachers at Ersatzschulen must have at least the same education and at least the same wages like teachers at public schools, an Ersatzschule must have at least the same academic standards like a public school and Article 7, Paragraph 4 of the Grundgesetz, also forbids segregation of pupils according to the means of their parents (the so called Sondierungsverbot). Therefore, most Ersatzschulen have very low tuition fees and/or offer scholarships, compared to most other Western European countries. However, it is not possible to finance these schools with such low tuition fees, that's why all German Ersatzschulen are additionally financed with public funds.
Ergänzungsschulen are secondary or post-secondary (non-tertiary) schools, which are run by private individuals, private organizations or rarely, religious groups and offer a type of education which is not available at public schools. Most of these schools are vocational schools. However, these vocational schools are no part of the German dual education system. Ergänzungsschulen have the freedom to operate outside of government regulation and are funded in whole by charging their students tuition fees.

The question has been and always will be-should Ireland continue to pay teachers in this school.

I don't really want to go on much more about this because it goes in circles. My main points are though that;

-Parents pay taxes. They save the state money by not going into the free sector. The capitation grants and other government grants are saved from these students and the Government should be putting this into free schools, I personally doubt they do though. The absolute cost of paying teachers in private schools is clear as these schools have been as of 2007/2008 at max capacity and therefore it is clear what is needed to pay them. There is no more 'waste' in paying them than the free sector, in fact there is probably less as enrollments didn't fluctuate in these schools as much as they did in some free ones.
-We cannot eliminate private schools. If you want to then we need to make a constitutional ammendment. If we do watch;
a)more IoE like Grind Schools.
b)more than the very few actually elite schools here been created
c)two tiered teaching service, the very best are hoovered up to the private. Trade unions would absolutely hate that.

As regards the 2.1 mill spent on capital projects I entirely disagree with this as I have stated earlier.

The goal posts has moved on this though. The State has already moved the pupil teacher ratio from 1:18 to 1:20, therefore the state no longer actually pays the same minimum staff teacher ratio in puplic and fee paying schools. This means support should be about 89 million nowadays, however, this could go down if we see a drop off in the numbers in the fee paying sector, note however any fall in that 89m will be negated by the fact that the state may have to increase the total on teachers in free schools and now have to pay the capitation grants so actually costing the state money. I don't believe that there is a massive withdrawel (as of the current cut in the grant) from these schools but if the example of Gonzaga in D6 is anything to go by (they have increased fees from 3,400 to just over 5,000 in the space of 2 academic years), then there will be a drop off if the dole lines don't decrease and the state cuts more.

I couldn't be bothered replying to your comparisons with Germany; they have a different system and good luck to them.
This is about the Irish system.
About the relevant points i've bolded; people paying for grinds is already prevalent; they are not subsidised by the government in doing so, so this is irrelevant.
If people want to send their kids to grind school and can fund it, good luck to them; they're already doing so.
Two tiered teaching service? Firstly, any country with its best interests at heart should ensure that there are plenty of good teachers around.
Secondly; if private schools feel they can assess, recruit and better pay the best teachers through an interview processs, good luck to them.
What makes a good teacher is unquantifiable; i'd be willing to bet that a lot of 'best' of them wouldn't go for the job and if they did wouldn't get it.
Anyway, that is all irrelevant.
The point is that the state should not be subsidising a multi-tier education system.

themont85

ascanbe wrote: »

I couldn't be bothered replying to your comparisons with Germany; they have a different system and good luck to them.
This is about the Irish system.
About the relevant points i've bolded; people paying for grinds is already prevalent; they are not subsidised by the government in doing so, so this is irrelevant.
If people want to send their kids to grind school and can fund it, good luck to them; they're already doing so.
Two tiered teaching service? Firstly, any country with its best interests at heart should ensure that there are plenty of good teachers around.
Secondly; if private schools feel they can assess, recruit and better pay the best teachers through an interview processs, good luck to them.
What makes a good teacher is unquantifiable; i'd be willing to bet that a lot of 'best' of them wouldn't go for the job and if they did wouldn't get it.
Anyway, that is all irrelevant.
The point is that the state should not be subsidising a multi-tier education system.

Of course different but plenty of similarities, I wonder why a fiscally conservative nation like themselves would continue such a subsidy? Or France who want to have the best public services in the world?

What makes a good teacher? Grades is the most important thing, if I have an English teacher than I want them to give me the best oppertunity of getting a good grade. That is what we all look at. Thats what parents look at. Thats what the Grind schools look at. In my school we had this brilliant maths teacher, really brilliant, got incredible results every year no matter the class size he took on. The IoE sniffed around for years but he never went, if he did that would have left a huge vacuum in our school and majorly boosted themselves. This could and has happened in many other schools and some teachers do go for the money. Increase the number of grind schools means less good teachers in the public sector.

The state should continue this situation as it saves the state money.

ascanbe

themont85 wrote: »

Just to add to my above post is the McCarthy Report which included obviousely Colm McCarthy and experts in the field of taxation and various other experts. They recommended cutting it by 25 million. If it was truely cost efficent to cut the entire 100m I think this report which recommended some savage cuts would include this on its 'wish list'. But it didn't. I guess they feel you can cut it by 25m and we won't see a reduction in enrollment in these schools. We shall see what the 10m will do, all I can say is that I have heard anecdotally from friends ect that going into the free sector is the plan for their kid where as before it was fee paying all the way. Of course I cannot prove that but it cannot be ignored that the 20 somethings without jobs at the minute will be looking at the state more and more for support for however long this recession goes on.

Yeah. Everyone knows that the McCarthy Report and its implementation, bailing out the banks and NAMA were all decisions made with nothing but the best interests of all the citizens of this state at heart.
No thought was given to temporarily calming the more affluent and kow-towing to the international economic 'think-tanks' who pretend to care for us; the IMF etc.
Actually, perhaps the government did have all our best interests at heart, though there is serious reason to doubt this; doesn't change the fact that they are mistaken/have been mislead and that everyone in this state will be left to rue this.

ascanbe

themont85 wrote: »

Of course different but plenty of similarities, I wonder why a fiscally conservative nation like themselves would continue such a subsidy? Or France who want to have the best public services in the world?

What makes a good teacher? Grades is the most important thing, if I have an English teacher than I want them to give me the best oppertunity of getting a good grade. That is what we all look at. Thats what parents look at. Thats what the Grind schools look at. In my school we had this brilliant maths teacher, really brilliant, got incredible results every year no matter the class size he took on. The IoE sniffed around for years but he never went, if he did that would have left a huge vacuum in our school and majorly boosted themselves. This could and has happened in many other schools and some teachers do go for the money. Increase the number of grind schools means less good teachers in the public sector.

The state should continue this situation as it saves the state money.

If, however, the numbers attending 'private' schools were cut by cutting off state subsidy the numbers of supposedly better teachers employed in them would be cut; and lets face it, private schools purport to employ the 'best' teachers.
Whether they do so by supplying 'perks' or by outlining the relative ease, combined with the cache, of working in their institutions, irrelevant.
Grades? In a system where the state is only subsidisng state schools they should not publish the grades of respective teachers; and these would be irrelevant anyway.
A teacher in a state school will have to deal with people of varying ability, motivation and from different backgrounds.
If this system doesn't satisfy parents who can afford to send their kids to private school, then fine; send your kids to private school.
And pay for it.

Alicat

I went to a private school and loved it. Nice small classes/years. I would've hated to be shoved in with the 300 odd yobbos in my local.

themont85

ascanbe wrote: »

If, however, the numbers attending 'private' schools were cut by cutting off state subsidy the numbers of supposedly better teachers employed in them would be cut; and lets face it, private schools purport to employ the 'best' teachers.
Whether they do so by supplying 'perks' or by outlining the relative ease, combined with the cache, of working in their institutions, irrelevant.
Grades? In a system where the state is only subsidisng state schools they should not publish the grades of respective teachers; and these would be irrelevant anyway.
A teacher in a state school will have to deal with people of varying ability, motivation and from different backgrounds.
If this system doesn't satisfy parents who can afford to send their kids to private school, then fine; send your kids to private school.
And pay for it.

They don't though. They have the same recruitment policies as state schools. They are sent HDIP students like the rest. Fee paying schools don't recruit teachers from other schools, Grind schools do though. The vast majority of the teachers in my school were either former pupils themselves or had been at the school pretty much since they started teaching. Never in my whole time was any teacher parachuted in.

Been a teacher in a state school isn't a problem in getting grades as plenty of free schools have shown, the demographics of an area are the most important. The only way to avoid this is to 'bus' kids into different areas.

And believe it or not, the IoE find out results or at least the general consenus of their students. If a a student getting a grind there goes on a Friday night for example they hand out a information sheet and ask specific questions about teachers who are good and could teach in their school.

Anyway I have to get back to work now , enough of this socio economic discussion for one night.