IS STATE-SUBSIDISING WEALTHY PRIVATE SCHOOLS NOT OUTRAGEOUS?

magicaljaso

Hi,

Forgive me if this is an old and tired topic of debate. I'm new to the area and am only beginning to try and grapple with the way in which the education system works.

My main query is as per the title. Why is there not more discussion about the fact that the State pays out substantial amounts of tax-payers money to pay for teachers and therefore fund smaller classes in wealthy private schools? With all of the qualified teachers currently out of work, surely a more equitable and employment engendering solution would be have the private schools pay for their own teachers and allow the state funded teachers to be employed in public schools?

Why is this not more of an issue? Maybe there has been a public debate about this and I have not been paying attention?

spurious

There are very few publicly-owned schools - this muddies the waters somewhat in the public/private debate.
The majority of schools in Ireland are owned by the Catholic Church in some guise or another.

EoghanRua

magicaljaso wrote: »

Hi,

Why is there not more discussion about the fact that the State pays out substantial amounts of tax-payers money to pay for teachers and therefore fund smaller classes in wealthy private schools?

Probably because the major opinion formers have a vested interest in the status quo or at least not criticising it.

For example The Irish Times floods wealthy private schools with free and subsidised newspapers to guarantee future readers and to appeal to future advertisers who will come from such schools. It and the Irish Independent will also go big on the Leinster schools' rugby competitions and send a journalist out to cover an otherwise obscure girls' hockey match for the same reason. It is not in the interest of such opinion formers to bite the hand that feeds them by criticising policy regarding such schools.

As for politicians, I imagine that privately educated people are disproportionately represented in the average cabinet. For example in the incipient new cabinet you'll have Leo Varadker, Brian Hayes, Ruairí Quinn, Simon Coveney, Richard Bruton, Eamon Gilmore and James Reilly - all educated in fee-paying schools and not maybe of the mindset to challenge the status quo. I would guess that less than 10 per cent of the population is educated in fee-paying schools but at least half the cabinet will have been. So that (the cabinet), like the media, is not reflective of society and will hardly raise debate on such a matter.

Whether this argument should be had in order to provide more money for jobs for teachers or because it is immoral (and arguably unconstitutional) in a country where we are all constitutionally equal is another matter of course. But it's easy to see why it is not raised as an issue - it is not in the interests of those who would have the power to raise it as most will have been educated privately and/or will educate their own children privately (politicians/newspaper editors), or have some financial benefit in such segregration of society in schools (newspaper marketing people who have a target audience).

EoghanRua

spurious wrote: »

There are very few publicly-owned schools - this muddies the waters somewhat in the public/private debate.
The majority of schools in Ireland are owned by the Catholic Church in some guise or another.

In fairness I think it is clear that the OP means fee-paying schools. Privately owned schools are not necessarily the same thing.

magicaljaso

EoghanRua wrote: »

In fairness I think it is clear that the OP means fee-paying schools. Privately owned schools are not necessarily the same thing.

When I said private I meant fee-paying. When I said public I meant schools that are not fee-paying.

Thanks for your replies. I appreciate there may be vested interests, however there are usually enough smoked-salmon socialists brought in by those papers who I would thought would be all over such an apparently obvious economic imbalance. I have the impression I'm missing something. Perhaps there is a valid, logical argument for the status quo?

jimi_t2

magicaljaso wrote: »

With all of the qualified teachers currently out of work, surely a more equitable and employment engendering solution would be have the private schools pay for their own teachers and allow the state funded teachers to be employed in public schools?

So the private schools can increase wages, leading to a brain drain in the public sector? This is besides the point that the fees generated go to pay (in part) things like heating, insurance and maintenance which are 6 to 7 figure sums a year in most average sized secondary schools - taking a further strain off the government.

The Irish Times floods wealthy private schools with free and subsidised newspapers

Where would this be? They do, however, flood the Universities

EoghanRua

jimi_t2 wrote: »

Where would this be?

Are you not familiar with the names of private schools? If the 'however' bit in your irrelevant reference to the universities is an implication that what I'm saying is not true you'd be wrong.

EoghanRua

jimi_t2 wrote: »

So the private schools can increase wages, leading to a brain drain in the public sector?

That's an interesting notion - that there would be pressure on the private sector in education to pay higher salaries than in the public sector. What would be the nature of this pressure? I can't imagine it's something any private enterprise would aspire to do without some kind of external economic pressure. Do fee-paying schools have difficulty attracting staff or something?

jimi_t2

EoghanRua wrote: »

Are you not familiar with the names of private schools? If the 'however' bit in your irrelevant reference to the universities is an implication that what I'm saying is not true you'd be wrong.

So you'll have no trouble answering my question then. What private schools are ''flooded'' with free newspapers? Indeed, what private schools sell newspapers (bar the boarding schools)?

That's an interesting notion - that there would be pressure on the private sector in education to pay higher salaries than in the public sector. What would be the nature of this pressure? I can't imagine it's something any private enterprise would aspire to do without some kind of external economic pressure. Do fee-paying schools have difficulty attracting staff or something?

If the wages were paid by the private schools, then they'd be free to pay whatever they chose and the best teachers would inevitably gravitate toward the money. Leading to a brain drain in the public sector.

As it stands, are you suggesting that the best teachers are located in private schools? If so, on what are you basing this?

Einhard

I'm far from well off, but the continuous recurrence of this inane, and frankly ignorant piece of rabble rousing really irks me. It's class warfare of the most rank kind. The wealthy among us pay taxes. Those taxes help to pay our teachers. Why then, should the wealthy not gain the benefit of that for which their taxes are contributing? Can anyone give me a rational answer? I serioualy doubt. Basically, the OP wants the well off to pay towards the teachers of his kids, and then fork out again to pay for their own kids. It's ridiculous.

rcdk1

• Children have a constitutional right to education
• The state has an obligation to provide education

Since a lot of (?most?) schools (fee paying or not) are not owned by the state, the state meets its obligation by providing funding to each school in the form of capitation (i.e. a certain amount of money per student).The children who go to fee paying schools are citizens and therefore the state is obliged to provide a capitation grant to their school.

====================================================
Is it morally acceptable that the capitation goes to fee paying schools (which I guess is the OP's real question)? I say, yes it is.

The vast majority of parents who send their children to fee paying schools are normal law-abiding, tax-paying citizens albeit with good jobs (doctors, lawyers etc). These people are generally at the mid to higher end of the tax net. Therefore if they've paid their taxes why shouldn't their children receive the capitation grant?

What they do with their wages after they've paid their taxes is their own business e.g. paying for their children to go to a fee paying school.

This is not my personal opinion but to take it to the other extreme, it could be argued that it is wrong that people who pay high taxes have to fund the education of children of people who pay little or no tax.

EoghanRua

jimi_t2 wrote: »

1) So you'll have no trouble answering my question then. What private schools are ''flooded'' with free newspapers? Indeed, what private schools sell newspapers (bar the boarding schools)?

2) If the wages were paid by the private schools, then they'd be free to pay whatever they chose and the best teachers would inevitably gravitate toward the money. Leading to a brain drain in the public sector.

3) As it stands, are you suggesting that the best teachers are located in private schools? If so, on what are you basing this?

1) No problem at all. Google fee-paying schools - my background knowledge of this is from having worked in the newspaper industry rather than in loads of the schools, so if you want specifics you'll get a list of schools by googling them. Incidentally I don't know of any schools that sell newspapers which is why I never mentioned it, but I suppose they may be out there.

2) How would private schools identify the 'best' teachers? Why when there is a significant over-supply of teachers would a private profit-making enterprise feel the need to pay over the odds?

3) Are you suggesting I am suggesting that the best teachers are located in private schools? If so, on what are you basing this? I cannot see for the life of me where I suggested that. But perhaps you'd point it out specifically.

EoghanRua

rcdk1 wrote: »

• The state has an obligation to provide education

This is debateable at the level of payment of salary. The home is the primary educator constitutionally and this has been upheld in court in recent times where a parent wished to educate their child in the home and the court found in their favour. The court made no mention of any constitutional obligation on the state to pay the parent a salary to do so. So the question of payment of all teachers' salaries by the state is far from clear it seems to me.

Treora

Go secular like the French and let everyone who wants religious or fee paying school fund their own teachers, but still be publicly audited. It would force everyone into the one room and the powerful would insist on the best facilities for their child's school, which also happens to be the school of the poorest children. I'd say that crime in schools (by children) would come under the spotlight as a minister's or judge's child being affect would change the complextion of the topic.

Einhard

EoghanRua wrote: »

This is debateable at the level of payment of salary. The home is the primary educator constitutionally and this has been upheld in court in recent times where a parent wished to educate their child in the home and the court found in their favour. The court made no mention of any constitutional obligation on the state to pay the parent a salary to do so. So the question of payment of all teachers' salaries by the state is far from clear it seems to me.

I'm not arguing from the point of view of the Constitution, but from a sense of fairness. I don't think a group in society can be asked to contribute to an educational fund, only to be told that they are not allowed derive any benefit from it. That's fundamentally inequitable.

EoghanRua

rcdk1 wrote: »

• Children have a constitutional right to education
• The state has an obligation to provide education

Since a lot of (?most?) schools (fee paying or not) are not owned by the state, the state meets its obligation by providing funding to each school in the form of capitation (i.e. a certain amount of money per student).The children who go to fee paying schools are citizens and therefore the state is obliged to provide a capitation grant to their school.

====================================================
Is it morally acceptable that the capitation goes to fee paying schools (which I guess is the OP's real question)? I say, yes it is.

The vast majority of parents who send their children to fee paying schools are normal law-abiding, tax-paying citizens albeit with good jobs (doctors, lawyers etc). These people are generally at the mid to higher end of the tax net. Therefore if they've paid their taxes why shouldn't their children receive the capitation grant?

What they do with their wages after they've paid their taxes is their own business e.g. paying for their children to go to a fee paying school.

This is not my personal opinion but to take it to the other extreme, it could be argued that it is wrong that people who pay high taxes have to fund the education of children of people who pay little or no tax.

The OP didn't mention capitation. The question was in relation to teachers' salaries not capitation.

jimi_t2

EoghanRua wrote: »

1) No problem at all. Google fee-paying schools

:rolleyes:

my background knowledge of this is from having worked in the newspaper industry rather than in loads of the schools, so if you want specifics you'll get a list of schools by googling them. Incidentally I don't know of any schools that sell newspapers which is why I never mentioned it, but I suppose they may be out there.

So then you'll find it easy to tell us what schools get free papers. Also, if the schools don't sell newspapers then how is the Irish Times ''subsidised'' in private schools.

2) How would private schools identify the 'best' teachers? Why when there is a significant over-supply of teachers would a private profit-making enterprise feel the need to pay over the odds?

The same way hiring the best teachers/instructors works in the private sector - by interview processes, in-situ examination of a teacher in a class environment etc...

3) Are you suggesting I am suggesting that the best teachers are located in private schools? If so, on what are you basing this? I cannot see for the life of me where I suggested that. But perhaps you'd point it out specifically.

So if the best teachers aren't located in private schools whats the problem? The parents of the students in private schools would, in general terms, earn more than the parents of the students in public schools by the fact that they're paying 30k-50k to put their child through the senior cycle for no significant educational advantage. In fact, this fee wholly goes toward the running of the school outside of the teachers wages. Money that the government would have to pay otherwise.

Just to reiterate, the denizens of private schools are paying for the cost of maintaining, heating and insuring the school - as well as the other incidental costs associated with running a school - and its students have no significant educational advantage in terms of teachers. Whats the issue?

EoghanRua

Einhard wrote: »

I'm not arguing from the point of view of the Constitution, but from a sense of fairness. I don't think a group in society can be asked to contribute to an educational fund, only to be told that they are not allowed derive any benefit from it. That's fundamentally inequitable.

Not sure if you are operating under more than one user-name but I replied to a different person who raised the point you are explaining the nuances of now. Where does the aforementioned 'obligation' come from except the constitution?

However, since you mention it, there is a situation at the moment where a group in society (a large tranche of tax-payers) is asked to contribute to an educational fund, and are not allowed derive any benefit from it (because they cannot afford the fees for private schools despite their tax paying teachers' salaries). And yes, it is fundamentally inequitable.

jimi_t2

EoghanRua wrote: »

This is debateable at the level of payment of salary. The home is the primary educator constitutionally and this has been upheld in court in recent times where a parent wished to educate their child in the home and the court found in their favour. The court made no mention of any constitutional obligation on the state to pay the parent a salary to do so. So the question of payment of all teachers' salaries by the state is far from clear it seems to me.

So as the court made no mention of any obligation to pay a single parent (no mention of if they were a teacher or not) a salary to teach their progeny in a one to one environment, you parallel this with pensionable PAYE workers teaching a group of 30 odd in a formal environment? Just want to try and understand your position

Rabble Rabble

jimi_t2 wrote: »

:

Just to reiterate, the denizens of private schools are paying for the cost of maintaining, heating and insuring the school - as well as the other incidental costs associated with running a school - and its students have no significant educational advantage in terms of teachers. Whats the issue?

Oh, what a waste of money then. You'd think the practice would die out.

rcdk1

EoghanRua wrote: »

This is debateable at the level of payment of salary. The home is the primary educator constitutionally and this has been upheld in court in recent times where a parent wished to educate their child in the home and the court found in their favour. The court made no mention of any constitutional obligation on the state to pay the parent a salary to do so. So the question of payment of all teachers' salaries by the state is far from clear it seems to me.

As you say the home/parent is the primary educator and if they wish to educate their child at home then that's their prerogative. However, at that point they (the parent) have absolved the state of its duty to provide education and therefore funding for education e.g. salaries. Of course the state still has an obligation to insure the child is being educated properly.

If the child returns to education outside the home, then the state's obligation to provide education, and therefore funding, resumes.

Rabble Rabble

jimi_t2 wrote: »

So as the court made no mention of any obligation to pay a single parent (no mention of if they were a teacher or not) a salary to teach their progeny in a one to one environment, you parallel this with pensionable PAYE workers teaching a group of 30 odd in a formal environment? Just want to try and understand your position

its the same in law. The court is saying that the (unpaid) home teacher does not need to be paid by the State, so we are arguing that teachers outside of the State education system dont have to be paid.

Einhard

EoghanRua wrote: »

Not sure if you are operating under more than one user-name but I replied to a different person who raised the point you are explaining the nuances of now.

I realise that, but I presume that people are allowed to respond even when they are not directly addressed? I'm new to this thread, so forive me if I've over-stepped the bounds...

Where does the aforementioned 'obligation' come from except the constitution?

I never claimed there was a constitutional obligation.

However, since you mention it, there is a situation at the moment where a group in society (a large tranche of tax-payers) is asked to contribute to an educational fund, and are not allowed derive any benefit from it (because they cannot afford the fees for private schools despite their tax paying teachers' salaries). And yes, it is fundamentally inequitable.

That's not the case at all. All tax-payers are allowed to derive beneft from the fund to which they contribute. I think you realise that is the case too.

EoghanRua

jimi_t2 wrote: »

1) So then you'll find it easy to tell us what schools get free papers. Also, if the schools don't sell newspapers then how is the Irish Times ''subsidised'' in private schools.

2) The same way hiring the best teachers/instructors works in the private sector - by interview processes, in-situ examination of a teacher in a class environment etc...

3) So if the best teachers aren't located in private schools whats the problem? The parents of the students in private schools would, in general terms, earn more than the parents of the students in public schools by the fact that they're paying 30k-50k to put their child through the senior cycle for no significant educational advantage.

4) Just to reiterate, the denizens of private schools are paying for the cost of maintaining, heating and insuring the school - as well as the other incidental costs associated with running a school - and its students have no significant educational advantage in terms of teachers. Whats the issue?

1) http://www.educationireland.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=26

Here's the list of schools - in my past experience every one of them was getting copies of the newspaper I worked for. I assume the same situation obtains.

I said I didn't know if schools sold papers or not, so you'll have to mull over the question of subsidised papers yourself. I couldn't comment on that which is why I haven't.

2) Sounds terribly like hiring public sector teachers to me. Are you sure the private sector does not have a better method?!

3) I cannot comment on the standard of teachers in fee-paying schools - you are the only one talking about that. They are recruited in the same manner as every other school so I'd assume they are the same mix as the rest, but I cannot say.

The educational advantage in such schools is in smaller classes and better facilites not (necessarily) better teachers. Of course in some cases sending children to such schools is more about social engineering than educational advantage.

4) The issue, as raised by the OP, (you should have read the post) is whether private schools should not operate completely as private concerns without recourse to the public purse. If you could see over the sandbags you might find it's worthy of some discussion in the abstract.

jimi_t2

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

its the same in law. The court is saying that the (unpaid) home teacher does not need to be paid by the State, so we are arguing that teachers outside of the State education system dont have to be paid.

But they are paid, as a salary cap on teachers would be legally unenforcable and would lead to the private schools paying higher wages, getting the best teachers in the country (turning into quasi-grind schools a la the Institute of Education on Leeson Street) and establishing an actual class divide.

The current system is equitable. The parents of the students of private schools are paying for the same quality of teachers as public schools AND funding the running of the school itself. Would you prefer if the government took this extra expense on to satisfy your opinions regarding class and privilege?

EoghanRua

jimi_t2 wrote: »

So as the court made no mention of any obligation to pay a single parent (no mention of if they were a teacher or not) a salary to teach their progeny in a one to one environment, you parallel this with pensionable PAYE workers teaching a group of 30 odd in a formal environment?

Yes. If, as your alter ego suggested, the state has an obligation to provide [pay for] education then yes there should be no distinction. But clearly the court saw a distinction between the private provision of education and state-funded education in this case. It might be argued that such a distinction had further possibilities.

Einhard

EoghanRua wrote: »

4) The issue, as raised by the OP, (you should have read the post) is whether private schools should not operate completely as private concerns without recourse to the public purse.

Why should people who contribute significantly to that purse be excluded from drawing on it?

EoghanRua

Einhard wrote: »

1) I never claimed there was a constitutional obligation.

2) That's not the case at all. All tax-payers are allowed to derive beneft from the fund to which they contribute. I think you realise that is the case too.

1) So where does this obligation derive from then?

2) So you are saying that being unable to afford fees for a fee-paying is irrelavant once you have paid tax? I'm not so sure that all tax-payers are allowed to derive benefit from the funding of private schools but perhaps you'd elaborate. I always assume fees would prevent this, and that the alleged unfairness suggested by the OP was bound up in this reality.

jimi_t2

EoghanRua wrote: »

1) http://www.educationireland.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=26

Here's the list of schools - in my past experience every one of them was getting copies of the newspaper I worked for. I assume the same situation obtains.

Just taking the first say... 10 private schools listed in Dublin. I attended one of them and know people in every single other. I've never seen or heard of free Irish Times being distributed. Oh, and I also did work experience in the Irish Times as well and never heard anything of the sort

I said I didn't know if schools sold papers or not, so you'll have to mull over the question of subsidised papers yourself. I couldn't comment on that which is why I haven't.

So the notion of subsidised papers for private schools might as well have been pulled out of thin air?

2) Sounds terribly like hiring public sector teachers to me. Are you sure the private sector does not have a better method?!

Sounds terribly like the pre-qualification process for teachers sitting a hDip to me. I'm sure the private sector has a better method that could be implemented, I was just giving an example as you were being pedantic.

3) I cannot comment on the standard of teachers in fee-paying schools - you are the only one talking about that. They are recruited in the same manner as every other school so I'd assume they are the same mix as the rest, but I cannot say.

So whats the issue? This simply means that the parents of students in such schools are paying for the running and administration of the school instead of the state. Sounds pretty fair to me.

[quote[The educational advantage in such schools is in smaller classes and better facilites not (necessarily) better teachers. Of course in some cases sending children to such schools is more about social engineering than educational advantage. [/quote]

Oh, better facilities. Most of which are used almost exclusively extra-curricularly and pretty much boil down to either music, drama, IT or sports facilities. The benefit of which, I might add, could be achieved far cheaper in the private sector and is freely available to anyone who can afford it.

Do you have any statistics that private schools have smaller classes?

4) The issue, as raised by the OP, (you should have read the post) is whether private schools should not operate completely as private concerns without recourse to the public purse. If you could see over the sandbags you might find it's worthy of some discussion in the abstract.

And my counter-issue, which I've stated previously, is why should the middle-class citizens of Ireland not fund the running of a number of (mainly religious) schools without recourse to the state? Would you prefer that the state incur the hundreds upon millions of a cost?

EoghanRua

Einhard wrote: »

Why should people who contribute significantly to that purse be excluded from drawing on it?

That's the question which gets at the heart of the apparent unfairness. Should the tax-payer fund enterprises which exclude people on a financial basis and in doing so derive funding from other sources?

jimi_t2

EoghanRua wrote: »

2) So you are saying that being unable to afford fees for a fee-paying is irrelavant once you have paid tax? I'm not so sure that all tax-payers are allowed to derive benefit from the funding of private schools but perhaps you'd elaborate. I always assume fees would prevent this, and that the alleged unfairness suggested by the OP was bound up in this reality.

Sorry, where does it say that the state funds private schools? The state pays the wages of all teachers, across the board, and oversees their eligibility and fitness to practice - ensuring that the standard of teaching, public or private, is roughly the same average across all schools. The state, however, does fund public schools.

Einhard

EoghanRua wrote: »

1) So where does this obligation derive from then?

Where does the obligation to pay for any teachers, in any schools derive from? It's a matter of fairness. If someone pays into an educaton fund, then they should be allowed have access to that fund.

2) So you are saying that being unable to afford fees for a fee-paying is irrelavant once you have paid tax? I'm not so sure that all tax-payers are allowed to derive benefit from the funding of private schools but perhaps you'd elaborate. I always assume fees would prevent this, and that the alleged unfairness suggested by the OP was bound up in this reality.

t's actually quite clear what I'm stating: if we operate a system where taxpayers contribute to a general fund for education, then those taxpayers should garner some benefit from the distribution of those funds.

How any individual decides to spend his or her remaining, private monies should be of absolute no benefot to the state.

Incidentally, there are plenty of parents out there who could not be considered well off in any sense of the word, but who scrimped and saved, and denied themselves in order to send their children to private schools. Why shouldn't that be their perogative? Why should the state tell them how to spend their own money?

EoghanRua wrote: »

That's the question which gets at the heart of the apparent unfairness. Should the tax-payer fund enterprises which exclude people on a financial basis and in doing so derive funding from other sources?

The taxpayer includes those who send their kids to private schools. So, yes, people should be allowed to expect some return for their taxes.

EoghanRua

jimi_t2 wrote: »

1) Just taking the first say... 10 private schools listed in Dublin. I attended one of them and know people in every single other. I've never seen or heard of free Irish Times being distributed. Oh, and I also did work experience in the Irish Times as well and never heard anything of the sort


2) So the notion of subsidised papers for private schools might as well have been pulled out of thin air?

3) Sounds terribly like the pre-qualification process for teachers sitting a hDip to me. I'm sure the private sector has a better method that could be implemented, I was just giving an example as you were being pedantic.

4) So whats the issue? This simply means that the parents of students in such schools are paying for the running and administration of the school instead of the state. Sounds pretty fair to me.

5) And my counter-issue, which I've stated previously, is why should the middle-class citizens of Ireland not fund the running of a number of (mainly religious) schools without recourse to the state? Would you prefer that the state incur the hundreds upon millions of a cost?

1) You would say that wouldn't you! I love the bit about the work experience!

2) Not sure where you pulled it out of but subsidised papers was your notion not mine.

3) Are you saying that the private sector does not have a better method? Then how can/could it possibly get better teachers?

4) The question is not and never has been the running and administration of the school. The question is (you really should read the opening post) payment of teachers' salaries. You keep asking "what's the issue?" That's the issue. That's the only issue. The rest is your invention.

5) But that's the nub of the issued raised by the OP - the middle-class citizens of Ireland DO NOT fund the running of a number of (mainly religious) schools without recourse to the state?

They have significant recourse to the state for teachers' salaries. The question was if this should be the case. Despite the smoke and bluster it raised it is legitimate to ask if these schools want to be in the private sector then why not go the whole hog and have done with it?

It's not a question of what I'd prefer - the state already does incur massive costs (in salaries). That's the whole point - should it?

EoghanRua

jimi_t2 wrote: »

Sorry, where does it say that the state funds private schools?

Have you not heard of capitation grants then? And because the state pays salaries of teachers the private schools do not have to. That might just about squeeze in under the banner of 'funding' too I would think.

Einhard

EoghanRua wrote: »

They have significant recourse to the state for teachers' salaries. The question was if this should be the case. Despite the smoke and bluster it raised it is legitimate to ask if these schools want to be in the private sector then why not go the whole hog and have done with it?

They have significant recourse to it, because they contribute significantly to it! I'd have no problem with fully privatising the whole thing- but that would have to mean a tax rebate for those who educate their children privately. What you're suggesting isn't really privatisation, because you'd also hit them for a contribution to the public purse.

EoghanRua

Einhard wrote: »

Where does the obligation to pay for any teachers, in any schools derive from? It's a matter of fairness. If someone pays into an educaton fund, then they should be allowed have access to that fund.

Governments do not do things because they are fair. They do so because they are legally obliged to do so.

"If someone pays into an educaton fund, then they should be allowed have access to that fund" - again though you seem to contradict yourself you are hitting the nub of the issue raised by the OP. Should private and by definition exclusive educational enterprises be publicly funded.

Should, for example, a private college like the Dublin Business School get public funding and have its teachers' salaries paid as, say, UCD does? Anyone who thinks not cannot credibily sustain an argument regarding similar funding of private second-level schools.

AIR-AUSSIE

But I pay tax - this tax goes on a variety of things which may or may not affect / benefit me, thats the way tax works. I don't have a right to gain a benefit from a redevelopment plan in mayo when i live in dublin. So why do these people putting their children through private school have the right to this funding?

EoghanRua

Einhard wrote: »

They have significant recourse to it, because they contribute significantly to it! I'd have no problem with fully privatising the whole thing- but that would have to mean a tax rebate for those who educate their children privately. QUOTE]


A tax rebate? In the same way that tax-payers in Donegal who don't have access to a train service get a tax-rebate? Or people in Kerry get a tax-rebate because they don't get to use the LUAS regularly despite having contributed to its funding?

Or the way those who buy private houses get tax-rebates because they are not using public housing despite having contributed to its funding through their taxes?

At least I'll be heading for the bed with a smile on my face at the thoughts of it all!

Einhard

EoghanRua wrote: »

Governments do not do things because they are fair. They do so because they are legally obliged to do so.

As you stated, they are not constitutionally obliged to fund public teachers' pay either. The "obligation" as it stands, is equal across the boards.

And governments do not act merely under legal compunction.

"If someone pays into an educaton fund, then they should be allowed have access to that fund" - again though you seem to contradict yourself you are hitting the nub of the issue raised by the OP. Should private and by definition exclusive educational enterprises be publicly funded.

I'm afraid that your comprehension abilities are somewhat inadequate if you can detect a contradiction in what I'm stating.

Teachers' pay should be funded by the fund contributed to by ALL taxpayers, regardless of whether the teacher works in a private or public school.

Do you believe that the government should have the right to tell private citizens how to spend their own money? That is what you're advocating. There's something absurd about having a problem with a citizen paying for capital investment in his child's school, where one wouldn;t have a problem if he spent that money on booze of foreign holidays. Who are you to tell someone else who they should spend their wages?

Should, for example, a private college like the Dublin Business School get public funding and have its teachers' salaries paid as, say, UCD does? Anyone who thinks not cannot credibily sustain an argument regarding similar funding of private second-level schools.

The two situations are not analogous. Private colleges like DBS offer a way around the system governing entry to public institutions, and therefore it would be unfair to fund them publicly. To fund both, whilst maintaining lesser entry standards for one would be fundamentally unfair.

AIR-AUSSIE

Do you believe that the government should have the right to tell private citizens how to spend their own money?That is what you're advocating.

Where does eoghan state this??

Einhard

EoghanRua wrote: »

A tax rebate? In the same way that tax-payers in Donegal who don't have access to a train service get a tax-rebate? Or people in Kerry get a tax-rebate because they don't get to use the LUAS regularly despite having contributed to its funding?

Or the way those who buy private houses get tax-rebates because they are not using public housing despite having contributed to its funding through their taxes?

At least I'll be heading for the bed with a smile on my face at the thoughts of it all! . QUOTE]


A tax rebate? In the same way that tax-payers in Donegal who don't have access to a train service get a tax-rebate? Or people in Kerry get a tax-rebate because they don't get to use the LUAS regularly despite having contributed to its funding?

Or the way those who buy private houses get tax-rebates because they are not using public housing despite having contributed to its funding through their taxes?

At least I'll be heading for the bed with a smile on my face at the thoughts of it all!

A return train from Kilkenny to Dublin now costs nearly €40, beyond the scope of many these days. Should those who can therefore afford to pay extra to travel in such style not fund it entirely on their own, without recourse to general taxation? Afterall, basic public infrastructure is provided through the public purse in the form of roads- if some people wish to travel in more style, why shouldn't such a system be entirely privatised? Like private schools, CIE is funded through both private and excheqeur monies, whilst the Luas is run entirely on private fees as far as I'm aware.


Your flawed reply does illustrate my point well however. We have quite generous welfare provisions in this state, paid for, in the main, by those who do not avail of them. I have no problem with such provisions. However, you want to create a situation where those who bear most of the financial burden for the running of the state, and who finance the lives of hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens, should have even less of a recourse to the funds which they contribute to the exchequer. Obviously you believe that fairness should not be applied to those over a certain income level. And you also have no problem on the state interfering in how citizen's spand their money. Such an attitude isn't exactly something I'd smile about.

Einhard

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

Where does eoghan state this??

At present, one is entitled to spend one's money on anything one wishes as long as it is within the law. Some people spend their discretionary cash on new cars, some on holidays, others on clothes, others still on extensions and improvements to property. And some people decide to invest their extra cash in the schools their children attend. Eoghan is inferring that the former is acceptable, but the latter beyond the Pale. He is stating that you or I shoud be free to spend our wages on anything we wish (within the law), as long as it's not on the schools our children attend.

Sid_Justice

Surely a more apt way of looking at it would why are parents subsidising schools by paying fees?

Occam

EoghanRua wrote: »

The Irish Times floods wealthy private schools with free and subsidised newspapers to guarantee future readers

EoghanRua wrote: »

2) Not sure where you pulled it out of but subsidised papers was your notion not mine.

No it was definitly you that pulled it out of thin air ....

:rolleyes:

Einhard

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Surely a more apt way of looking at it would why are parents subsidising schools by paying fees?

I suppose some people believe there is a certain cachet in attending a private school. I totally disagree, but if people want to spend their spare cash on their childrens' schools, as opposed to holidays or property, why should we penalise them?

jimi_t2

EoghanRua wrote: »

1) You would say that wouldn't you! I love the bit about the work experience!

Yeah I would say that as, unlike you, I'm dealing with fact rather than complete fantasy spawned by prejudice. I'm glad you like the bit about work experience; I'm referring to 3rd level work experience and ended up working for them as a temp in one department for a while as well. Unlike you who obviously worked in the department of funny hats.

Feel free to PM me with your department and line manager; I'll be in there at the weekend at some point and would love to be able to confirm your story.

2) Not sure where you pulled it out of but subsidised papers was your notion not mine.

' wrote:

The Irish Times floods wealthy private schools with free and subsidised newspapers to guarantee future readers

Nope, it was your notion and is amongst your first posts on the thread. Troll fail. You could have at least tried to cover your tracks before refuting it :rolleyes:

3) Are you saying that the private sector does not have a better method? Then how can/could it possibly get better teachers?

How in gods name did you come to that conclusion. What I actually said, quoted for posterity, is

' wrote:

I'm sure the private sector has a better method that could be implemented, I was just giving an example as you were being pedantic.

The crux of my argument was that if private schools paid teachers salaries then they could pay what wages they wanted, as a cap would be legally unenforcable, and that they could get the best teachers because of this - leading to an uneven playing field between private/public schools.

4) The question is not and never has been the running and administration of the school. The question is (you really should read the opening post) payment of teachers' salaries. You keep asking "what's the issue?" That's the issue. That's the only issue. The rest is your invention.

I read the OP, and the posts after it, carefully - unlike you. I've explained, repeatedly, why the payment of teachers salaries would create an uneven playing field and you've just chosen to ignore it. I've also explained that, as a result, the fees paid to private schools fund the running of said schools almost wholly - saving the states hundreds of millions a year.

5) But that's the nub of the issued raised by the OP - the middle-class citizens of Ireland DO NOT fund the running of a number of (mainly religious) schools without recourse to the state?

Yes they do. What they don't do is pay the teachers salaries, for the very good reason of the brain-drain scenario outlined repeatedly.

They have significant recourse to the state for teachers' salaries. The question was if this should be the case.

What recourse to the state? They're paying for the teachers by proxy of their taxes. In fact, they are paying more taxes by virtue of a higher gross income. The state undertook to control the asssesment, management and payment of all secondary school teachers for a reason.

Despite the smoke and bluster it raised

Almost entirely from you I might add

it is legitimate to ask if these schools want to be in the private sector then why not go the whole hog and have done with it?

Sure, anything is legitimate to ask. It's a discussion forum. As I've said (for maybe the fifth time now?) you make private schools wholly private and they end up paying their own salaries and poaching the best teachers; creating an ACTUAL class divide.

It's not a question of what I'd prefer - the state already does incur massive costs (in salaries). That's the whole point - should it?

The state incurs massive costs (in salaries) for a wide range of services that people with higher incomes are financially prevented from availing of. Even though they fund the VAST majority of such endeavours. It works both ways.

jimi_t2

EoghanRua wrote: »

Should, for example, a private college like the Dublin Business School get public funding and have its teachers' salaries paid as, say, UCD does? Anyone who thinks not cannot credibily sustain an argument regarding similar funding of private second-level schools.

A private 3rd level facility, such as DBS, does not get public funding as it is not accredited by the state, or any subsidiary body derived from it - unlike UCD, almost the entirety of its courses are accredited by professional bodies and universities outside of this country. The reason that it is on the CAO system is to fulfill the requirements of the Bologna Accords.

The parallel you should be drawing is between that of DBS, Portobello and other similar private 3rd level institutions that exist outside the remit of the government with The Institute, Bruce College and the other 2nd level institutions that do so as well.

vallo

magicaljaso wrote: »

Hi,
Why is there not more discussion about the fact that the State pays out substantial amounts of tax-payers money to pay for teachers and therefore fund smaller classes in wealthy private schools? With all of the qualified teachers currently out of work, surely a more equitable and employment engendering solution would be have the private schools pay for their own teachers and allow the state funded teachers to be employed in public schools?

If all the fee-paying schools closed tomorrow, the cost of educating all those students would fall to the state.
We/the state would have to pay more teachers and support staff to cover the costs of some of the teaching and support staff that are currently paid from fees.
We/the state would also have to pay more teachers' salaries as the teacher/pupil ratio in private schools is lower (state pays for 1 teacher per 19 students in normal schools and 1 per 20 in fee-paying - I think. Can't remember exact figure - but there is a difference of 1).
We/the state would also have to pay for the buildings, repairs, maintenance of the schools etc, grants for science equipment, ICT etc etc - all of these the fee-paying schools cover themselves.
So although it may rankle with some, the truth of the matter is that fee-paying schools save the exchequer money.

PS - please don't use CAPS in thread titles. While you are clearly outraged, you don't have to shout about it!

Rosita

jimi_t2 wrote: »

A private 3rd level facility, such as DBS, does not get public funding as it is not accredited by the state, or any subsidiary body derived from it - unlike UCD, almost the entirety of its courses are accredited by professional bodies and universities outside of this country. The reason that it is on the CAO system is to fulfill the requirements of the Bologna Accords.

The parallel you should be drawing is between that of DBS, Portobello and other similar private 3rd level institutions that exist outside the remit of the government with The Institute, Bruce College and the other 2nd level institutions that do so as well.

You are completely missing the point. Here's what Eoghan Rua wrote: "Should, for example, a private college like the Dublin Business School get public funding and have its teachers' salaries paid as, say, UCD does?"

It is a very relevant parallel being drawn. Private schools get teachers' salaries paid by the government, which would be the same as private third-level colleges doing likewise. But that doesn't happen as they, as private colleges, are expected to fund themselves. That seems logical enough and it also seems logical that second-level schools would do so.

Nobody is saying the schools should not exist - just that they should fund themselves entirely.

Rosita

jimi_t2 wrote: »

Feel free to PM me with your department and line manager; I'll be in there at the weekend at some point and would love to be able to confirm your story.

It's a long time since I saw a riposte as juvenile as this. If you track back you'll see that Eoghan never claimed to have worked for any specific newspaper.

I worked in the Times myself until about two years ago and never heard anyone refer to a 'line manager' - at least in the newsroom. We tended to call them editors. Are you sure you're not Walter Mitty? :rolleyes: If you want to get into the brinkmanship yourself, you can give your details to Colm Boland or Kevin O'Sullivan or Peter Murtagh and I'll call them on Monday to confirm your credentials.

And, yes, copies of the paper going to fee-paying schools would have been part of the reality, but so too for the Indo and Examiner. It is of course a completely peripheral point and your attempts to make it central suggests that you have no real core argument in favour of fee-paying schools other than your own determined prejudice.

Rosita

vallo wrote: »

If all the fee-paying schools closed tomorrow, the cost of educating all those students would fall to the state.
We/the state would have to pay more teachers and support staff to cover the costs of some of the teaching and support staff that are currently paid from fees.
We/the state would also have to pay more teachers' salaries as the teacher/pupil ratio in private schools is lower (state pays for 1 teacher per 19 students in normal schools and 1 per 20 in fee-paying - I think. Can't remember exact figure - but there is a difference of 1).
We/the state would also have to pay for the buildings, repairs, maintenance of the schools etc, grants for science equipment, ICT etc etc - all of these the fee-paying schools cover themselves.
So although it may rankle with some, the truth of the matter is that fee-paying schools save the exchequer money.

PS - please don't use CAPS in thread titles. While you are clearly outraged, you don't have to shout about it!

This is nonsense. The marginal cost of paying for the education of those students probably would not be all that significant. The government is already paying the salaries of their teachers anyway so their would be no extra cost there. As for paying for upkeep of schools and equipment, in reality these students would find themselves in schools with larger classes and without some of the needless extravagance associated with the fee-paying schools. The average state school does not have property portfolios to maintain for private gain, not large tracts of land to farm. I suspect fee-paying schools don't save the exchequer a penny.