Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

IS STATE-SUBSIDISING WEALTHY PRIVATE SCHOOLS NOT OUTRAGEOUS?

13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭ Chilli Con Kearney


    Off topic I know, but I'm just happy to see Powerhouse resurface.

    I'd been wondering where you'd gotten to - missed the posts. Back with a bang.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭ vallo


    If all the fee paying schools shut down in the morning do you think they would just lump all of those students into existing schools? Of course not, the fee paying schools would just become public schools under the Dept of Education. The facilities and staff would already be there.

    Classes would probably become some bit bigger as the fees brought into those schools is used to hire extra teachers privately to offer extra subjects or to keep classes sizes small. All of the privately paid teachers would lose their jobs, the public ones wouldn't for the most part.

    A friend of mine works in a fee paying school, she is employed by the Dept of Education. Five teachers were let go in her school last year, all were teachers privately employed by the school. They are the first to go when the school has to save money.

    I agree, BUT in addition to the staff that the state school are already paying for
    - the state would have to pay additional teachers to keep the ratios in line with all the other public schools and
    - the state would have to pay capitation, science equipment and all the other stuff it currently doesn't pay for in fee-paying schools.
    Bottom line is that if we got rid of fee-paying schools, it would cost more money to the state.

    It'll certainly be interesting to see what Ruairi Quinn will do next.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,957 ✭✭✭ The Volt


    They are inevitably set up as a profit driven business first and a place of learning second. They have no moral right to the huge funding that they receive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,001 ✭✭✭ doc_17


    vallo wrote: »
    I agree, BUT in addition to the staff that the state school are already paying for
    - the state would have to pay additional teachers to keep the ratios in line with all the other public schools and
    - the state would have to pay capitation, science equipment and all the other stuff it currently doesn't pay for in fee-paying schools.
    Bottom line is that if we got rid of fee-paying schools, it would cost more money to the state.

    It'll certainly be interesting to see what Ruairi Quinn will do next.

    Not all these students would come back to 'free' education so it wouldnt cost that much. It's a disgrace that these schools get funding at all. If they are private then they should get nothing. It's poor people subsidizing rich people.

    Not wanting to start an arguement but your bottom line assertion is wrong.

    If richer people want to keep their kids away from poorer ones then they pay the full economic cost of it. If they can't afford it then let them "slum it" with the rest of the little people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 192 ✭✭ Jcarroll07


    doc_17 wrote: »
    It's poor people subsidizing rich people.

    .

    Your completely wrong. Rich pay taxes as well. (Granted there are nasty pieces of work that get away with out paying taxes at all but that is for a different trend) but 99% pay there taxes. The only thing and you can take my word for this that the government pay for in privet schools are the teachers and we would have to pay for them through our taxes weather they were working in public or privet schools. Privet schools usually gain money for other things through fundraising in their school or in some cases from passed pupils. Quinn himself said privet schools save the country money. So why not keep them.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭ evolving_doors


    doc_17 wrote: »
    .......It's poor people subsidizing rich people.

    If richer people want to keep their kids away from poorer ones then they pay the full economic cost of it. If they can't afford it then let them "slum it" with the rest of the little people.

    This topic usually descends into a rich v's poor debate which is false

    From my experience the majority of parents who send their children to these schools DO make sacrifice to pay the fees, and have been saving years before the child attends the school.. sure there are about 1/3 of these parents for whom money is no object ,,but the majority are relatively middle class and do make sacrifices..

    Contrast this with the family up the road from me..(not a 'well off area' by any means)..made a bit of money during the boom... take 2 holidays a year.. bought a brand new car.. new windows new driveway..goes to matches abroad..spend a fortune on 'junk' food and takeaways every week... Granted they're not doctors or solicitors BUT they could in theory have sent their children to a 'fee paying' school if they had wanted..(not that there's anything wrong with the school that the kids currently go to)


    can anybody seriously tell me that it's a rich v's poor debate?


  • Registered Users Posts: 566 seriouslysweet


    My parents are both doctors...we go to a public school, in fact we go to a community school, go figure that one out!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 ✭✭✭ floating voter


    Will you become a doctor??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 Powerhouse


    Armelodie wrote: »

    can anybody seriously tell me that it's a rich v's poor debate?


    How can it seriously not be when the issue is people paying fees to schools?

    How many long-term unemployed do you know sending their children to fee-paying shools? How many people earning the average industrial wage send their children to fee-paying schools? If there are quite a few then maybe we are missing something and you are right that it is not rich vs poor.

    You can argue that they are a good thing but you cannot seriously or credibly argue that money is not the primary distinguisinging factor in the debate because the schools themselves have made it so by charging fees.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 Powerhouse


    Jcarroll07 wrote: »

    Your completely wrong.


    You are the one that's completely and ludricously wrong. Of poor these schools are subsidised. If the schools were genuinely private and had to pay their teachers the fees would shoot up to cover these costs. Therefore they by definition are being subsidised, by the people not benefitting from them.

    It's one thing to argue that the schools should be 'kept' (noone has argued otherswise I believe - though many argue they should be funded privately only) but it is quite another to argue that black is white as you are doing.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 192 ✭✭ Jcarroll07


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    If the schools were genuinely private and had to pay their teachers the fees would shoot up to cover these costs.

    Ya your completely right. The fees would go up a lot like in england where the government don't pay for the teachers and its about 45 grand a year (sterling). If that were to happen here i would bet most if not all the privet schools would close. Because people would not be able to afford it. You then have to pay for the teachers from the school that you were already paying for. And provided new facility for all the extra students. This would cost the state a huge amount of money. They only pay for the teachers which they would be doing in what ever school they are in. Other then that they don't pay and the privet school save them money.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 Powerhouse


    Jcarroll07 wrote: »
    Ya your completely right. The fees would go up a lot like in england where the government don't pay for the teachers and its about 45 grand a year (sterling). If that were to happen here i would bet most if not all the privet schools would close. Because people would not be able to afford it.


    Exactly, so the schools are being subsidised by thousands who will never have the opportunity to set foot in them. Let's not pretend otherwise.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭ looksee


    There is a lot of irrelevant arguement going on here.

    Do we accept that all the children of the state are entitled to an education? If they are, then it is reasonable that their education is paid for out of the country's budget, which is funded by taxpayers.

    The people with the highest incomes pay the most tax (whether it is enough is an entirely different argument) so are fairly contributing to that education.

    If parents wish to spend their income on education, or fast cars, or holidays abroad that is their business, but having contributed, they are certainly entitled to have their children educated.


  • Registered Users Posts: 148 ✭✭ Pegasusbridge


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    Exactly, so the schools are being subsidised by thousands who will never have the opportunity to set foot in them. Let's not pretend otherwise.

    The government spend lots of money on things that many of the citizens of this country will never use. If I can't afford a car then I don't get to use the motorways. Is that acceptable? I can understand that people question the fairness of the governments limited funding of fee paying schools but realistically these schools save the state money.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 Powerhouse


    looksee wrote: »
    There is a lot of irrelevant arguement going on here.

    1) Do we accept that all the children of the state are entitled to an education? If they are, then it is reasonable that their education is paid for out of the country's budget, which is funded by taxpayers.

    2) If parents wish to spend their income on education, or fast cars, or holidays abroad that is their business, but having contributed, they are certainly entitled to have their children educated.

    1) It is entirely reasonable but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether schools run by private enterprises such be entitled to the same funding. People are entitled to a public health service but people seem not to think it reasonable that staff in private hospitals are paid by the public purse. Why it should be different because it's a school is not clear.

    2) Nobody is questionaing anyone's right to choose how they spend their money. And they are entitled to have their child educated - nobody is questioning that either. The state provides a very wide education service which is available universally. The difference between fast cars and holidays is that the state is not funding the providers of the fast cars or holidays. It it was then we would be perfectly entitled to question whether it should be.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 Powerhouse


    The government spend lots of money on things that many of the citizens of this country will never use. If I can't afford a car then I don't get to use the motorways. Is that acceptable? I can understand that people question the fairness of the governments limited funding of fee paying schools but realistically these schools save the state money.


    Absurd analogy. People are constitutionally entitled to have an education provided. They are not constitutionally entitled to drive on motorways.

    If people wish private education providers to exist that's fine but let them genuinely save money for the state by funding their own staff as well. €100 million per year is no small beer.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭ looksee


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    1) It is entirely reasonable but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether schools run by private enterprises such be entitled to the same funding. People are entitled to a public health service but people seem not to think it reasonable that staff in private hospitals are paid by the public purse. Why it should be different because it's a school is not clear.

    2) Nobody is questionaing anyone's right to choose how they spend their money. And they are entitled to have their child educated - nobody is questioning that either. The state provides a very wide education service which is available universally. The difference between fast cars and holidays is that the state is not funding the providers of the fast cars or holidays. It it was then we would be perfectly entitled to question whether it should be.

    Of course it is the issue. Every child is entitled to an education. If parents choose to pay the difference between a state school and a private school that is their business, the child is still entitled to an education, all the parents are paying is the upgrade, all the state is paying is for the basic education. The parents are taxpayers, they are as entitled to that basic input from the government as someone who does not pay a cent in tax and is in fact taking from the state for their basic income as well as education for their children.

    Comparing the health system is pointless as the health system is ridiculous and needs to be completely reorganised.


  • Registered Users Posts: 148 ✭✭ Pegasusbridge


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    Absurd analogy. People are constitutionally entitled to have an education provided. They are not constitutionally entitled to drive on motorways.

    If people wish private education providers to exist that's fine but let them genuinely save money for the state by funding their own staff as well. €100 million per year is no small beer.


    And nobody is being denied their right to education because there are fee paying schools. The fact remains that not every single person benefits from every single thing that the government spends money on.

    I agree that 100 Million is no small beer but if there was no fee paying schools the goverment would have to spend the 100 million and pay capitation per student as well as equipment costs etc.
    The only way the state could save this 100 million is if we believe that the vast majority of children in fee paying schools would remain in fee paying schools if the fee was in the 20,000-50,000 range as opposed to the current 2,000-8,000 range. In the current circumstances that seems highly unlikely. Therefore fee paying schools work well as a public-private partnership that provide good education and save money for the taxpayer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,001 ✭✭✭ doc_17


    The government spend lots of money on things that many of the citizens of this country will never use. If I can't afford a car then I don't get to use the motorways. Is that acceptable? I can understand that people question the fairness of the governments limited funding of fee paying schools but realistically these schools save the state money.

    Limited funding? The single biggest expense these school have is their wage bill. I'd hardly call that limited funding.

    To say that it would cost the state money to stop funding them is wrong. It's not we would have to build 20 new schools tomorrow. These students who then couldn't afford the real cost of their education would be dispersed among the 750 second level schools that already exist.

    Now, you might say these schools are old and crumbling and couldn't handle the influx of a few more students......and if you said that then I'd say thats another good reason to stop paying teachers in private colleges....let's build good schools for the public with public money and not pay private teachers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭ vallo


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    The issue is whether schools run by private enterprises such be entitled to the same funding.

    But the situation right now is that they are not entitled to the same funding. They don't get per student capitation, the state pays for fewer teachers per student, and all the costs such as ICT, science labs and sports equipment are funded from fees. These are all bills that the tax-payer would have to pay if the private schools didn't exist.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,001 ✭✭✭ doc_17


    vallo wrote: »
    But the situation right now is that they are not entitled to the same funding. They don't get per student capitation, the state pays for fewer teachers per student, and all the costs such as ICT, science labs and sports equipment are funded from fees. These are all bills that the tax-payer would have to pay if the private schools didn't exist.

    You're ignoring the elephant in the room.....all those other costs are important yes but the big one is tEacher pay. Sure kit out a science room and that it's kitted out forever


  • Registered Users Posts: 148 ✭✭ Pegasusbridge


    doc_17 wrote: »
    Limited funding? The single biggest expense these school have is their wage bill. I'd hardly call that limited funding.

    To say that it would cost the state money to stop funding them is wrong. It's not we would have to build 20 new schools tomorrow. These students who then couldn't afford the real cost of their education would be dispersed among the 750 second level schools that already exist.

    Now, you might say these schools are old and crumbling and couldn't handle the influx of a few more students......and if you said that then I'd say thats another good reason to stop paying teachers in private colleges....let's build good schools for the public with public money and not pay private teachers.

    Yes Limited as the state limits its funding to fee paying schools and only covers the cost of teachers at a worse ratio then all other schools get (admittedly only slightly worse). Also they don't recieve capitation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 148 ✭✭ Pegasusbridge


    doc_17 wrote: »
    You're ignoring the elephant in the room.....all those other costs are important yes but the big one is tEacher pay. Sure kit out a science room and that it's kitted out forever

    However we would still have to pay the bulk of those teacher costs as so many students would leave fee paying schools and enter the free system.
    We would then have to pay capitation every year for those students thus not only removing any financial gain but actually costing the state more money


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭ vallo


    doc_17 wrote: »
    You're ignoring the elephant in the room.....all those other costs are important yes but the big one is tEacher pay.
    I think it's you who is ignoring the elephant in the room to be honest. The teachers would have to be paid either way and more of them would have to be paid as only a tiny proportion of students who are currently in fee-paying schools would continue in fee paying schools if their parents had to bear the complete cost of their education.
    doc_17 wrote: »
    Sure kit out a science room and that it's kitted out forever
    Sure! As long as all the students agree never to break a test-tube or use up any of the chemicals and the department agrees never to add anything new to the curriculum or enforce expensive safety measures on the schools. Very realistic. I guess ICT needs would be a once off as well - no need to worry about Moore's Law in your world.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,001 ✭✭✭ doc_17


    vallo wrote: »


    Sure! As long as all the students agree never to break a test-tube or use up any of the chemicals and the department agrees never to add anything new to the curriculum or enforce expensive safety measures on the schools. Very realistic. I guess ICT needs would be a once off as well - no need to worry about Moore's Law in your world.

    One students private fee would buy a hell of a lot of yet tubes, HCL, Manganese Dioxide etc. Just on the ICT thing.....out school raised the money to kit out our own computer room and put data projectors and laptops in each room. There wasn't much helpmfrom the state for us two years ago when we did it.

    How sophisticated do desktop pcs need to be? Moored law doesn't apply ....I wasn't aware we were required to double our computer speed every two years...so no... It doesn't apply.

    We are subsidising rich people to send their kids to palaces with other rich kids, swimming pools...paid for rugby and basketball coaches etc..

    Our school recently lost an all Ireland final against a private fee paying school and their school had a paid coach training them and we had a teacher doing the same job as an add on to his day job.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭ evolving_doors


    My parents are both doctors...we go to a public school, in fact we go to a community school, go figure that one out!

    That's all well and good but I never said that there was anything wrong with non-fee paying schools...god knows what the difference between a public school and a community school is anyway,, maybe you're implying that a community school is somewhat lesser than a public school by using the words 'in fact'...

    to me it doesn't matter a damn where you go if you're happy ...BUT... having had experience of teaching in a 'fee paying' school I can say that I would definitely send my children there due to..

    A: Smaller Class Sizes
    B: Wider Choice of Subjects
    C: Academically focused
    D: Strong Emphasis on the Arts
    E: Better Teacher Morale by a long shot.

    Seriouslysweet's comment that "my parents are both doctors...we go to a public school" just proves the point that it is not a rich v's poor debate..it's a debate about choice and being willing to pay for that choice is what enables the existance of fee paying schools..

    this whole lark about 'private enterprise' is a joke as most fee-paying AND non feepaying schools are patronised by religious orders anyway..(and that's a completely different debate)

    For a thread title how about..


    ISN'T 'FEE PAYING SCHOOLS' SUBSIDISING THE COST TO THE STATE NOT JUST FABULOUS


    The thread title isn;t really a question anyway!


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,530 CMod ✭✭✭✭ spurious


    Armelodie wrote: »
    to me it doesn't matter a damn where you go if you're happy ...BUT... having had experience of teaching in a 'fee paying' school I can say that I would definitely send my children there due to..

    A: Smaller Class Sizes
    B: Wider Choice of Subjects
    C: Academically focused
    D: Strong Emphasis on the Arts
    E: Better Teacher Morale by a long shot.

    It's debatable whether some fee-paying schools provide any or all of those better than some non-fee-paying schools, particularly the last one.

    My main objection to the fee-paying sector taking money from the public purse would be the mysterious way their entrance policies and procedures mean they manage to avoid enrolling their fair share of children with special needs and difficulties in general.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭ evolving_doors


    doc_17 wrote: »

    Our school recently lost an all Ireland final against a private fee paying school and their school had a paid coach training them and we had a teacher doing the same job as an add on to his day job.

    By extension you are arguing that it would be better for every school in the country if they didn;t have a paid coach and that they had a teacher coaching as an add on to their normal teaching hours..

    Typical Irish begrudgery.. just listen to the radio any day of the week ,,
    " why should the public sector have jobs when i've just lost my job... why should their pensions be so good when i've just lost all my pension with the bank "

    dog in a manger syndrome it's called

    Maybe ye lost because of the inferioriority complex ...I bet that was the main consoling arguement after the match.. 'ya we lost the match mainly because our coach just wasn't good enough compared to their brilliant super duper coach'

    typical Ireland


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭ looksee


    We are subsidising rich people to send their kids to palaces with other rich kids, swimming pools...paid for rugby and basketball coaches etc..

    How are 'we' subsidising rich people? Rich people pay taxes. Their children are entitled to a basic education. Which is what they get from the government contribution to the school costs. ANYTHING ELSE is paid for by the parents out of their after-tax earnings.

    Anyone who pays little or no tax for whatever reason has their children's education subsidised by the 'rich people' (among others). They are the ones being subsidised.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 961 ✭✭✭ gingernut79


    I hate to add fuel to this fire, but having read the entire thread you have all missed one major point. Perhaps intentionally, but I think its relevant. religious ethos. Should non-Catholics and non-religious people be made to to the local school regardless of its religious ethos if they have a choice to attend a fee paying school of their choosing? Which sort of brings me round to the whole State vs Church thing but thats somewhat OT.


Advertisement