Should the €100 million state subsidy to fee-paying private schools be stopped?

Dionysus

Just watching the Gilmore-Martin debate. This part of the debate stood out for me.

Vincent Browne: Éamonn, do you think the state should continue to subsidise a two-tier educational system at the cost of a €100 million a year subsidy to fee-paying schools?


Éamonn Gilmore: No, I don't. I think that we need to have a fair system of education the same way as we need to have a fair system of health....

At present there are kids going without psychological assessments, and thus resource teaching and a wide variety of other supports. Classes are bigger, and with the reduction in supports for kids with special needs, classes are suffering from greater disruption. At the same time, €100 million per annum is being given to fee-paying private schools. To my mind, this is immoral. Fine Gael supports this €100 million transfer from the public education system to the private education system. Gilmore and Labour, I now know, oppose it.

My question: Do you think the €100 million state subsidy to fee-paying private schools should be invested in the state-owned school system instead?

christmas2010

If support is taken from the fee paying schools they would have to greatly increase their fees meaning many kids would instead be sent to state schools. Not sure there would be any net gain for the tax payer

Doop

Question: when students from fee paying schools cant afford their current school where are the thousands of them going to go?... squeeze em back into the public ones?

Also many of the private schools cater for religious minorities. Our current so called "multi-denominational" schools do not.

Herb Powell

Doop wrote: »

Question: when students from fee paying schools cant afford their current school where are the thousands of them going to go?... squeeze em back into the public ones?

Also many of the private schools cater for religious minorities. Our current so called "multi-denominational" schools do not.

what does that even mean?

Dionysus

No

christmas2010 wrote: »

If support is taken from the fee paying schools they would have to greatly increase their fees meaning many kids would instead be sent to state schools. Not sure there would be any net gain for the tax payer

Fair point, but the state schools would have greater economies of scale if that €100 million were used to develop, improve and expand the state-owned school system.

At present most of that €100 million is used for paying teacher salaries in fee-paying schools, who can then use their own fees to build better schools and thus keep people going there/ keep the state system weak. As public policy, it doesn't make any sense to my mind to hand €100 million over to private entities, usually religious denominations, to in effect enrich their private property when it could be used to develop our own schools.

red menace

The article you reference is from 2008, do you have anything more current?

I would be curious as to what the subsidy is for

PeterIanStaker

No

Doop wrote: »

Also many of the private schools cater for religious minorities. Our current so called "multi-denominational" schools do not.

Religion, whether its a minority or not, should not be in schools, full stop.

This €100m would be better used in building and funding more inclusive schools and hiring more teachers to reduce class sizes.

Dionysus

No

red menace wrote: »

The article you reference is from 2008, do you have anything more current?

I would be curious as to what the subsidy is for

26,000 at private schools at a cost of €100m to taxpayer (21 April 2010)

Snakeblood

No

Herb Powell wrote: »

what does that even mean?

Jewish schools? Protestant schools?

I don't think they should be subsidised, but I believe that's what it means

Snakeblood

No

Dionysus wrote: »

26,000 at private schools at a cost of €100m to taxpayer (21 April 2010)

I suppose if there were disabled students getting the benefit of this I might be more ok with it.

PeterIanStaker

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Religion, whether its a minority or not, should not be in schools, full stop.

An awful lot of people would disagree with you. We have one of the best education systems in the world thanks to the Catholic church and Ireland is a catholic country despite what a lot in after hours would like to think.

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

This €100m would be better used in building and funding more inclusive schools and hiring more teachers to reduce class sizes.

It is effectively doing this. Without the subsidy less could afford private thus bigger class sizes and it helps to pay for the extra teachers which are teaching in the private school.

Degsy

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

This €100m would be better used in building and funding more inclusive schools and hiring more teachers to reduce class sizes.

But then the people would be in uproar about the shocking way money is being wasted hiring yet more useless Public Servants..the govt policies have been to decrease teacher numbers,lower teachers pay and increase the size of classrooms.

There is a moratorium on Public sector recruiting so there will be no more teachers,no more nurses and no more guards.

Eventually the pay will be judged to be so bad that nobody will want to work as a teacher and fcuck knows what that will do to the standard or education in this country.

Doop

Herb Powell wrote: »

what does that even mean?

#

Huh? it means what it means. Have a look at the big private schools in Dublin and see what ethos the schools falls under. Many of the private schools came about as to offer an alternitve to the public CATHOLIC schools

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Religion, whether its a minority or not, should not be in schools, full stop.

I whole heartily agree unfortunitly thats the present system we have in this country.

My experience of a public "mulit-denominational" school was a religion class thought by a catholic priest and another year a catholic nun, teaching Catholicism.

Anyway dont want to derail this on religious grounds!!

MagicMarker

Marina Hallowed Salt wrote: »

An awful lot of people would disagree with you. We have one of the best education systems in the world thanks to the Catholic church and Ireland is a catholic country despite what a lot in after hours would like to think.

Ugh, just stop. It's not about what AH thinks, it's about facts, and the fact is Ireland is not a catholic country.

red menace

With teacher salaries paid by the State, many fee-paying schools enjoy much better facilities than their counterparts in the free second-level sector.

So the teachers are still paid by the state, which I suppose is OK as all teachers should be employees of the Dept of Education
Where does the Eight grand per child go though

It does seem a bit of a waste supporting these schools when their wage bill is being carried by the state.
I know a lot of smaller schools in many schools would need the money an awful lot worse

Chuchoter

To say that we should scrap the subsidy is an incredibly populist statement to make (but then I guess thats Labour in general).

Its very nice to say 'Oh those damn rich people, riding off the backs of the poor paying taxes'. This is not the case. My parents pay their taxes, thereby having paid for my place in a normal school, but instead decide to not have other things to pay again to send me to private schools. Were you to cancel the subsidy, most of my school would not be able to attend anymore. You have to educate us. Where are you going to put us? In your already overcrowded public schools? With no money for assessments? Private schools are what are keeping the education system from overflowing.

PeterIanStaker

No

Marina Hallowed Salt wrote: »

An awful lot of people would disagree with you. We have one of the best education systems in the world thanks to the Catholic church and Ireland is a catholic country despite what a lot in after hours would like to think

Religion, including Catholicism has destroyed the country and the sooner we see the end of children being indoctrinated with its mysoginistic, homophobic, backward ideas the better. If parents want to religiously indoctrinate their kids, then let it be on their own time and not in school.

Anyway, back on topic, education is a right, not a privilege, and the powers that be need to combat early school leavers in disadvantaged areas, which is where funds should go.

Cool Mo D

Private schools don't really get a "subsidy".

The department of education pays a certain amount per student to every school to pay teachers, run the buildings, etc. Fee paying schools get the same as non fee-paying. Any school can decide to charge fees on top of their department of education money.

Red Hand

Marina Hallowed Salt wrote: »

An awful lot of people would disagree with you. We have one of the best education systems in the world thanks to the Catholic church and Ireland is a catholic country despite what a lot in after hours would like to think.

Hope you're being sarcastic. The Catholic Church owns many of the school buildings and has a say in school's religious input but that doesn't mean that the standard of education is due to the Catholic church.

Our education system is fair...by no means the best in the world, though.

Badgermonkey

Doop wrote: »

Also many of the private schools cater for religious minorities. Our current so called "multi-denominational" schools do not.

Wesley, St. Columbas College, The Kings Hospital, Alexanda College, Headfort Co. Meath, Rathdown School, St. Andrews. St Patricks Cathedral School, The High School.

I'm sure I've missed some.

Fight_Night

Would be very short sited to stop the subsidy to fee paying schools. The fees in private schools would sky rocket up and inevitably many people would not be able to afford it and they would have to go to public schools. Yes there would be more money available to hire extra teachers and reduce class sizes, but the influx of the students who can't afford the private school fees would probably cancel it out and we'd be back at square one.

Badgermonkey

Marina Hallowed Salt wrote: »

An awful lot of people would disagree with you. We have one of the best education systems in the world thanks to the Catholic church

You may need to revise that somewhat.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2010/1214/1224285481350.html

Dionysus

No

Fight_Night wrote: »

Would be very short sited to stop the subsidy to fee paying schools. The fees in private schools would sky rocket up and inevitably many people would not be able to afford it and they would have to go to public schools.

The horror. :eek:

Doop

My original point regarding religion was simply this..

I am not a catholic. I am entitled to an education. My parents and now my, taxes go towards public and private schools. After attending a public school, we werent happy with the enforced religion classes (no option to 'sit out' supposedly due to insurance reasons)

Private schools generally have a different attitude towards religion classes, which does not involve mandatory classes. So in order for me to avail of this option my folks had to fork out a large portion of their wages for us to attend a private school on top of the taxes they pay.

Therefore yes the subsidy should stay, also in regards to a previous post im sure teachers wages in private schools is part of the 'subsidy'.

Fight_Night

Dionysus wrote: »

The horror. :eek:

read the rest of my post

desertcircus

I don't get this idea that rich parents are doing the rest of us a favour by sending their kids to fee-paying schools. A child at a fee-paying school doesn't disappear from the costs to the Department of Education: the same amount is still given out. Remove the subsidy and the total cost to the state will remain the same.

The subsidy to fee-paying schools and the introduction of free fees has meant that the size of the fee-paying school sector is far bigger than it would be if the state simply paid for children to attend state school and assumed that anyone who can afford a fee-paying secondary school can afford to pay fees for college. You're not doing the rest of us a favour; the fee-paying sector hives off a lot of the best teachers, drills children more intensively for exams which means they get a disproportionate share of third level places, and benefits massively from not having to deal with problem students from poor backgrounds. If the subsidy disappeared, some schools would lose out, but most would benefit from the influx of talented teachers and motivated students. If you really want to send your kids to a private school to get all those benefits, don't expect me to be happy to subsidise you.

As an aside: George Monbiot wrote in the Guardian a few months ago about a real cat-among-the-pigeons idea: assigning college places according to a student's performance relative to their classmates in their school. In other words, medicine is offered first to the couple of hundred people around the country who were miles ahead of everyone else in their class, irrespective of how they did compared to the rest of the country. Thoughts?

dotsman

This debate comes up the whole time and is always the same BS. Even the phrase "subsidising" pretty much sums up the view-point of those who use it.

Fee-paying schools are NOT "subsidised". The vast majority of schools in this country are private. Teachers across all the various schools types are paid for by the Department of Education.

For public schools (ie community schools), the building, management, general running of the schools are paid for by the taxpayer. For private schools, this is paid for by the school. How do the private schools fund this? Typically, this comes from a mixture of applying for grants, fundraising and the religious order that runs the school. Where does the religious order get the money? By making some of their schools fee-paying.

Thus, you may have a fee-paying christian brothers school and a non-fee paying christian brothers school. Thus, if one is to use the term "subsidising", it is the parents of children in fee paying schools who "subsidise" the children attending the non-fee paying schools.

But, hey, never let common sense get in the way of typical socialist drivel.

stovelid

No

Jaysus - 20 Just William voters already.

ChocolateSauce

All schools receive the same amount of state money per student, more or less; some schools charge extra fees on top of that. It seems fair to me, the state giving the same to every student like that.

All schools are private anyway, as close to 100% of them are owned and operated by religious groups.

Herb Powell

crayolastereo wrote: »

To say that we should scrap the subsidy is an incredibly populist statement to make (but then I guess thats Labour in general).

Its very nice to say 'Oh those damn rich people, riding off the backs of the poor paying taxes'. This is not the case. My parents pay their taxes, thereby having paid for my place in a normal school, but instead decide to not have other things to pay again to send me to private schools. Were you to cancel the subsidy, most of my school would not be able to attend anymore. You have to educate us. Where are you going to put us? In your already overcrowded public schools? With no money for assessments? Private schools are what are keeping the education system from overflowing.

U mad

The_Minister

The State has a duty to educate children, so it pays for the teachers and the odd building grant.

Parents choose to pay extra so their children have access to better facilities.

Withdrawing the subsidy won't bring up students in public schools, it will just bring down those currently in private.

It's childish and wrong to say that "because the State cannot give it to X then Y is banned from having it if he can pay for it himself".

Parents have the right to have their children's education funded by the State, but they also have a duty to do what they can for their children, and if that means that they think the kid needs access to swimming lessons, and they are willing to pay for it themselves, then grand.

What's next, withdrawing education funding from families that get their kid a grind, or pay for them to be taught archery instead of football?

dotsman

Degsy wrote: »

But then the people would be in uproar about the shocking way money is being wasted ....

I think your post is pretty much the exact opposite to the truth.

Degsy wrote: »

the govt policies have been to decrease teacher numbers,lower teachers pay and increase the size of classrooms.

Over the past 15 years, due to government policies (pushed for by the unions), teacher's salaries have soared, yet classroom sizes have decreased.

Degsy wrote: »

There is a moratorium on Public sector recruiting so there will be no more teachers,no more nurses and no more guards.

The moratorium is in place for a short period of time, as the current employees refuse to take a pay cut or change their work practices to make them affordable. If they were to do this, then we would be able to afford a much better public service. The moratorium will be lifted soon enough, and trust me, there will be plenty of teachers/nurses/guards.

Degsy wrote: »

Eventually the pay will be judged to be so bad that nobody will want to work as a teacher and fcuck knows what that will do to the standard or education in this country.

As each day goes by, the pay of the public service workers is being judged to be better and better. That is why there are more and more people are trying to get into these areas, but are being denied due to union policies. I have lost count of the number of girls I have met over the past few years who have either lost their job or left their job voluntarily to do Hibernia courses. A lot of people I know would give their left nut/boob to be a teacher.

Gyalist

Removing the grant to fee-paying schools will result in an even more elitist system.

The real question to the politicians should be why they failed to invest adequately in the nation's public schools. Afterall, "a rising tide lifts all boats."

Guy:Incognito

If the private schools didnt get money I'd most likely have had to go to school with Tallaght people instead of private school in Clonskeagh :-)

ascanbe

Yes. The state should provide a public school system available to all. If there are those who feel this is not good enough for their children then they are free to finance an alternative if they wish.
The state should not be propagating a two-tier school system.

lily09

No

The moratorium is in place for a short period of time, as the current employees refuse to take a pay cut or change their work practices to make them affordable. If they were to do this, then we would be able to afford a much better public service. The moratorium will be lifted soon enough, and trust me, there will be plenty of teachers/nurses/guards.

For the record.
1. Employees have taken a pay cut whether or not you think the amount is sufficent is irrelevant.
2. Teachers have changed their work practices, all primary teachers(maybe post primary also-am unsure) began the extra hour a week under the CP.
3. There is no moratorium on teaching posts, only promotion.

menoscemo

What would happen to all the teachers that the state is 'sudsidising' in Fee Paying schools?

They are actually state employees and can't be just sacked. So the governement would not actually save any money.

ascanbe

menoscemo wrote: »

What would happen to all the teachers that the state is 'sudsidising' in Fee Paying schools?

They are actually state employees and can't be just sacked. So the governement would not actually save any money.

The numbers to be educated wouldn't change. Roughly the same number of teachers would be needed. The state is already paying for the wages of teachers in private schools: the state would continue to pay the wages of those re-integrated to the public system. Others, presumably, would be employed in whatever number of private schools remained.