Why are Senior Civil Servants paid so much ?

PatsytheNazi

As above, like it's not that they ran the country well now is it :rolleyes:. Listening to the radio on Sunday morning, someone said that 60 Senior Civil Servants are better paid that the Taoiseagh - who is better paid than Obama, Merkel etc as we all know too well.

But, apart from cronyism, what's the political advantage for giving them such outrageous salaries ?

RichardAnd

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

As above, like it's not that they ran the country well now is it :rolleyes:. Listening to the radio on Sunday morning, someone said that 60 Senior Civil Servants are better paid that the Taoiseagh - who is better paid than Obama, Merkel etc as we all know too well.
?

Not true. The salary of the president of the united states is 400k a year, Enda gets less than 200k euro which is a far measure shy of obama's salary.

The belief you mention came from a brief period when, due to exchange rates, the taoiseach earned more in dollars than the then US preisident. I don't know what Merkel gets paid but I believe the current salary for the office of the taoiseach is more or less proper given the position.

As to your question, top level civil servants were bench marked against top executives which allowed them to get the salaries they enjoy. Now I, personally, have no issue with a department head getting a salary equal to his private sector companion (or close to it) but what I do have issue with the PS position being void of the responcibilies. In short, such positions should be well paid but they should also come with the consequences for failure that they would have in the private world.

PatsytheNazi

RichardAnd wrote: »

Not true. The salary of the president of the united states is 400k a year, Enda gets less than 200k euro which is a far measure shy of obama's salary.

The belief you mention came from a brief period when, due to exchange rates, the taoiseach earned more in dollars than the then US preisident. I don't know what Merkel gets paid but I believe the current salary for the office of the taoiseach is more or less proper given the position.

As to why some public servants get so much, well that is an unfortunate situiation that won't easily correct itself. The top levels of the civil service are, I'm going to have to be brutal, a total closed shop. You're talking about very powerful men with alot of clout, arguably more than most politicans. They have a good thing and it won't be easy to take away.

Well thanks for the quick reply and I'm sorry if I got things wrong on the taoiseach's salary, but well, is it that no govt has the motivation, honesty or in blunt terms, balls to tell them what to do ?

RichardAnd

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Well thanks for the quick reply and I'm sorry if I got things wrong on the taoiseach's salary, but well, is it that no govt has the motivation, honesty or in blunt terms, balls to tell them what to do ?

I edited my post to explain it a little better

PatsytheNazi

RichardAnd wrote: »

Not true. The salary of the president of the united states is 400k a year, Enda gets less than 200k euro which is a far measure shy of obama's salary.

The belief you mention came from a brief period when, due to exchange rates, the taoiseach earned more in dollars than the then US preisident. I don't know what Merkel gets paid but I believe the current salary for the office of the taoiseach is more or less proper given the position.

As to your question, top level civil servants were bench marked against top executives which allowed them to get the salaries they enjoy. Now I, personally, have no issue with a department head getting a salary equal to his private sector companion (or close to it) but what I do have issue with the PS position being void of the responcibilies. In short, such positions should be well paid but they should also come with the consequences for failure that they would have in the private world.

Ok, thanks. So top civil servants picked out top private sector executives salaries and decided that they were comparable and gave themselves their own salary level they thought that they deserved !!!!!

Ah typical of the great Bertie and co. :rolleyes:

Cookie_Monster

Because they're worth it

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Einhard

I have no problem paying top salaries for top people. The problem though, is that in the Civil Service, "top people" is taken to mean those who happen to be at the top, rather than those who are capable of doing an excellent job. It sometimes seems that the criteria for success in a position in the higher echelons of the PS is simply to occupy that position. Rather than being a means to and end, ie delivering on reform, running the state in an efficent manner, these jobs often seem to be an end in themselves, ie a nice, well renumerated position, insulated from the realities of private sector peers.

Let them keep their salaries, but let them also be genuinely accountable. Each department should have targets set at the beginning of every year, and if the targets are not met, then those at the top should suffer the consequences. Independent panels, outside the PS, should review the progress of each depertment in meeting its own targets. At least that way we can have some reassurance that people are earning their salaries.

On a side note, I actually think the cap on salaries could be counter-productive. If, for whatever reason, we need the expertise of genuine leaders in their fields, how can we attract them if we refuse to pay the going rate. The cancer strategy and centralisation scheme seems to have been value for money, and highly necessary, but could we have attracted Prof Keane if we had capped his salary to less than that he'd receive elsewhere?

dissed doc

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Ok, thanks. So top civil servants picked out top private sector executives salaries and decided that they were comparable and gave themselves their own salary level they thought that they deserved !!!!!

Ah typical of the great Bertie and co. :rolleyes:

As far as I know, these top civil servants have salaries of 200k a year, not 5 million a year + 60% salary bonuses, etc., .

Seth Brundle

dissed doc wrote: »

As far as I know, these top civil servants have salaries of 200k a year, not 5 million a year + 60% salary bonuses, etc., .

Given they way that they have helped steer the country over the last decade, they would not be able to keep a €5m job (this is doubly so given their lack of commercial experience).
Anyhow, what makes them worth over 200k?

WalterMitty

Who decides the pay of public servants? other public servants! Turkeys dont vote for Xmas. There should be an independent board/commision to set wages for politicians and public servants based on going rates in private sector and rates paid by public services around world.

bamboozle

WalterMitty wrote: »

Who decides the pay of public servants? other public servants! Turkeys dont vote for Xmas. There should be an independent board/commision to set wages for politicians and public servants based on going rates in private sector and rates paid by public services around world.

listening to either RTE or Newstalk over Easter weekend, there was a discussion panel on which one speaker suggested top civil servants pay in ireland was double that in Germany, while doctor/surgeon pay was triple that in Germany.

If these guys in the irish civil service were worth it it would be somewhat understandable but its a closed shop where the salaries were determined by self appointed bodies, where the likes of Pat Neary had huge salaries yet no professional qualifications.
i'm sure this will change but it will take time for those at the top to retire and then to be replaced by younger people on salaries which reflect the circumstances we are now in.

motherriley

RichardAnd wrote: »

Not true. The salary of the president of the united states is 400k a year, Enda gets less than 200k euro which is a far measure shy of obama's salary.

The belief you mention came from a brief period when, due to exchange rates, the taoiseach earned more in dollars than the then US preisident. I don't know what Merkel gets paid but I believe the current salary for the office of the taoiseach is more or less proper given the position.

As to your question, top level civil servants were bench marked against top executives which allowed them to get the salaries they enjoy. Now I, personally, have no issue with a department head getting a salary equal to his private sector companion (or close to it) but what I do have issue with the PS position being void of the responcibilies. In short, such positions should be well paid but they should also come with the consequences for failure that they would have in the private world.

Does the 200k include expenses or is it just salary, which I think is too much for a small country of 5million population.

UK PM get less which includes expenses and I believe the UK is made up 50 to 60million population. Ireland pays far too much by way of salaries and other benefits and that is why such a small country is in dire-straits.:(



http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/


http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/M05.pdf

P. Breathnach

WalterMitty wrote: »

Who decides the pay of public servants? other public servants! Turkeys dont vote for Xmas. There should be an independent board/commision to set wages for politicians and public servants based on going rates in private sector and rates paid by public services around world.

You mean a benchmarking body: now, there's a good idea.

bamboozle

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You mean a benchmarking body: now, there's a good idea.

perhaps a new benchmarking body would have some representation from the private sector, the IMF and the ECB rather than just a bunch of civil servants and judges throwing darts at a dart board to decide how much extra to pay themselves.

RobbieTheRobber

bamboozle wrote: »

perhaps a new benchmarking body would have some representation from the private sector, the IMF and the ECB rather than just a bunch of civil servants and judges throwing darts at a dart board to decide how much extra to pay themselves.

such as maybe


Chairperson:
The Hon Mr. Justice John Quirke, Judge of the High Court
Members:
Mr. Billy Attley (former General Secretary of SIPTU)
Mr. John Dunne (out-going Director General of IBEC)
Mr. Phil Flynn (former President of ICTU and former General Secretary of IMPACT)
Ms. Maureen Lynott (Management Consultant)
Mr. Paddy Mullarkey (former Secretary General, Department of Finance)
Mr. Jim O’Leary* (Chief Economist, Davy Stockbrokers)

Jaysoose

The senior civil servants are obviously paid so much as they are dilligent hard working managers that can motivate a workforce to work as efficiently as possible trying to reduce department budgets as much as possible. And as its their careers on the chopping block when something gos wrong they get paid the big bucks for the big risks and the accountability that go with those risks.


Obviously.

macannrb

They also get a lot of holidays too.

I guess its because its stressful making important decisions, knowing you could lose your job if you dont make the right choice

Bits_n_Bobs

Jaysoose wrote: »

The senior civil servants are obviously paid so much as they are dilligent hard working managers that can motivate a workforce to work as efficiently as possible trying to reduce department budgets as much as possible. And as its their careers on the chopping block when something gos wrong they get paid the big bucks for the big risks and the accountability that go with those risks.


Obviously.

You forgot to add the massive demand for these folk in the private sector. If they were not paid huge bucks they would be poached!! We would loose our best and brightest to the evil private sector!!!

jmayo

They believe in the L'Oreal principle.
"Becuase they are worth it."

Sleepy

In reality, it's because their mates are the ones in power and they set each other's salaries.

P. Breathnach

Sleepy wrote: »

In reality, it's because their mates are the ones in power and they set each other's salaries.

Never mind the facts: prejudice is much simpler.

Inverse to the power of one!

I guess its because its stressful making important decisions, knowing you could lose your job if you dont make the right choice

Er....NO!
Afaik, senior civil servants cannot be fired baring serious misconduct......which in the Irish case would necessitate WW3 to do so. They can lose their position, but that is not the same as losing your job, in fact they can't lose.....worse case scenario get chipped down to a "lower management" position and wait on the pension.

You forgot to add the massive demand for these folk in the private sector. If they were not paid huge bucks they would be poached!! We would loose our best and brightest to the evil private sector!!!

Again.....NO
People in the private sector will always be picked over public service workers for their "real world" experience and to put it mildly, more realistic expectations in terms of renumeration.

That said tho, Senior civil servants can be attractive should you need someone with the connections appropriate to you aims or should you require experience in the governmental sector.......still not enough to warrant huge demand in the private sector.

But as to why they are paid so well.....basically they have Ministers by the balls from day one, if you want to get things done in the departments you have responsibility for then you'll need the heads of those departments on board. These guys outlast Governments and economic cycles and are so well ingrained in their position they hold huge amounts of power as well as being backed up by their colleagues. From a ministers point of view it's like cutting the heads of a hydra should you try and take them on, therefore.....they don't....instead they pay them more to keep them pliant.

Wonderful system of government we have aye?

Sand

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Er....NO!
Afaik, senior civil servants cannot be fired baring serious misconduct......which in the Irish case would necessitate WW3 to do so. They can lose their position, but that is not the same as losing your job, in fact they can't lose.....worse case scenario get chipped down to a "lower management" position and wait on the pension.

Again.....NO
People in the private sector will always be picked over public service workers for their "real world" experience and to put it mildly, more realistic expectations in terms of renumeration.

Theres a near toxic level of sarcasm in those comments you responded to. I dont blame you for taking them seriously though - civil servants really do believe theyre paid so much because theyre big decision makers, taking the responsibility for the big decisions, making the big calls. If they werent paid so much, theyd be headhunted for to make the big calls in the private sector.

Mind you, when the big calls backfire, suddenly its all "de Ministers" fault, and civil servants are the hired help with as much responsibility as the guy who takes your order at burger king.

gigino

Why are Senior Civil Servants paid so much ? because they have done such a great job of running the country and controlling our economy that they deserve to be the best paid public servants in the world. Average public service pay in the UK is betwen 22 and 23k a year stg. Our top public servants deserve to be paid 15 and 20 times that, because ...well, because they are so great at running our country;):rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

Sand wrote: »

Theres a near toxic level of sarcasm in those comments you responded to. I dont blame you for taking them seriously though - civil servants really do believe theyre paid so much because theyre big decision makers, taking the responsibility for the big decisions, making the big calls. If they werent paid so much, theyd be headhunted for to make the big calls in the private sector.

Mind you, when the big calls backfire, suddenly its all "de Ministers" fault, and civil servants are the hired help with as much responsibility as the guy who takes your order at burger king.

You are onto something there

when things go wrong due to bad decision making (or lack of altogether) it is not the Regulator/Government/DOF/Insert_quango/etc fault

but it is the fault and responsibility of ALL the voters and taxpayers
as we are being told constantly lately.

thebman

I like this yes minister video :P

http://youtu.be/DqgEecUhjyI

There is an even better one but realistically, accountability is passed around so that nobody is held accountable in Irish government/public service. At least as far as public relations are concerned.

Maybe its different behind closed doors...

Sleepy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Never mind the facts: prejudice is much simpler.

How is it prejudice? The facts are:

1. These positions are very, very highly paid.
2. There is next to no accountability involved in the roles: how many senior Public Servants have been fired for lack of performance in recent years despite many instances of under-performance bordering on (if not actually) illegal?
3. Bertie Ahern is on record saying he gave people jobs "not because of any donation but because they were [his] friends". Surely that's proof of many of the appointments being political?

Now, tell me this:

1. Who makes the recommendations for politicians salary levels in Ireland?
2. Who signs off on the salaries for the heads of the various departments and semi-state quangos?

My phrasing lacking nuance doesn't make the statement prejudiced. Perhaps there are a handful of the senior civil servants who could command such remuneration packages in the private sector for their managerial talents (rather than their political connections or knowledge of the systems) but the vast majority would struggle.

jmayo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Never mind the facts: prejudice is much simpler.

It is you who appears to be the one ignoring the facts. :rolleyes:

Vastly overpaid, irresponsible, unaccountable, unfirable and arrogant would be my summation of our top public servants.
Note I used the words public servants and not just civil servants.

Otherwise please explain the goodbye money on top of previous large salaries given to such high flyers and "high achievers" as roddy molloy, patrick neary, etc ?

Inverse to the power of one!

Sand wrote: »

Theres a near toxic level of sarcasm in those comments you responded to.

Doh!

The old sarco detector let me down......then again.....this is an Irish forum and some of the things people believe in this country......can you blame me?

We're in for a soft landing after we've turned the corner my boyo!

Bits_n_Bobs

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

We're in for a soft landing after we've turned the corner my boyo!

lol - you deserve a hefty salary increase, benchmarking and a nice big pension with inspired economic predictions like that...moving forward that is...country being effectively in receivership...front line staff will not be effected...we are a government so we can 'create' jobs with a 'jobs initiative budget'...

OK - can someone please tell me wtf a jobs initiative budget is? I get worried when the bearded wonders in the unions and the school teachers in the dail start mouthing the same clap-trap.

ei.sdraob

Ah now give @P some slack sure they where just engaging in "groupthink" and all that, who needs accountability.

I wonder if they tried using the "groupthink" defence at the Nuremberg trials :P

ardmacha

As always this thread has completely lost its way and should be closed.
Senior civil servants represent the same management culture found in banks etc, although their salaries are less than half. Neither group seems to have any real accountability or any real concern with long term performance.

Many groups, public and private, need to get their act together. Be pretty well paid, for sure, but perform at that level too.

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

As always this thread has completely lost its way and should be closed.
Senior civil servants represent the same management culture found in banks etc, although their salaries are less than half. Neither group seems to have any real accountability or any real concern with long term performance.

Many groups, public and private, need to get their act together. Be pretty well paid, for sure, but perform at that level too.

While I agree with the sentiment, I also find it predictable that someone would bring in "the bankers" into it.

OMD

ardmacha wrote: »

. Neither group seems to have any real accountability or any real concern with long term performance.

.

Well the bankers have lost their jobs. Yes they got massive payments when they went but they are gone. Senior civil servants are still there and will get massive pay outs when they decide to retire.

gigino

OMD wrote: »

Well the bankers have lost their jobs. Yes they got massive payments when they went but they are gone. Senior civil servants are still there and will get massive pay outs when they decide to retire.

Its immoral and wrong that the vast amount of people in the private sector are so much worse off than those on the public service gravy train.....and that our public sector is paid so much more than the public sectors elsewhere. Time we got real as a country.

ardmacha

Time we got real as a country.

Time you got real as a poster and stop posting unsubstantiated exaggeration.

macannrb

ardmacha wrote: »

Time you got real as a poster and stop posting unsubstantiated exaggeration.

I think gigino has a fair point. Even Morgan Kelly pointed out public sector workers are paid far too highly.

Can we afford it? no
Do they really perform at a higher level? there doesnt seem to be any evidence of it
Bankers are now part of the PS at this stage, and their wages should be halved also.

unsubstantiated exaggeration? like 20bn in defict for last year. And the same predicted for this year? you are right, give those senior civil servants a bigger bonus

ardmacha

Gigino may have a point, but "the vast amount of people in the private sector are so much worse off than those on the public service" is unsubstantiated exaggeration.

macannrb

ardmacha wrote: »

Gigino may have a point, but "the vast amount of people in the private sector are so much worse off than those on the public service" is unsubstantiated exaggeration.

The vast amount of people in the private sector, can be given involuntary redunancy at any time that their bosses choose. That substantiates that particular point

But don't bother responding to my points on sustainability or questioning the idea that senior civil servants perform at a high level

ardmacha

The vast amount of people in the private sector, can be given involuntary redunancy at any time that their bosses choose.

That is true. But in sectors such as health and education there is little chance of genuine redundancy as demand for these services does not vary much. SO the difference in likelihood of redundancy largely reflects the sector as much as the ownership of the business.

But don't bother responding to my points on sustainability or questioning the idea that senior civil servants perform at a high level

I am not defending the performance of senior civil servants, see post #32 above.

macannrb

ardmacha wrote: »

That is true. But in sectors such as health and education there is little chance of genuine redundancy as demand for these services does not vary much

You are using the term demand. I would prefer if you used the term effictive demand.

I demand Ferrari, but I can't pay for it. So the providers will not make another Ferrari. Now apply the same approach to public services. What can we afford, what can we not afford. Prioritise services. Some may be seen as things we can't live without, but many are luxuries we have grown accustomed to. Now we must learn to live without.

thebman

macannrb wrote: »

You are using the term demand. I would prefer if you used the term effictive demand.

I demand Ferrari, but I can't pay for it. So the providers will not make another Ferrari. Now apply the same approach to public services. What can we afford, what can we not afford. Prioritise services. Some may be seen as things we can't live without, but many are luxuries we have grown accustomed to. Now we must learn to live without.

Well its simple really. Taxes should not increase because people are demanding these services. Charges should be introduced/increased for these services if necessary to cover a short fall.

If people refuse to pay then the service will have to be provided for less. The real problem I see is almost no attempt has been made to make services such as education efficient.

Seth Brundle

How would you propose to make a service like education efficient?

ardmacha

Irish education has always been efficient by European standards, which cannot be said of many other parts of the public and private sectors.

thebman

kbannon wrote: »

How would you propose to make a service like education efficient?

Share facilities where possible between schools.

There are two schools across the road from each other in my town, one using old buildings and prefabs and the other an educate together that seems to be not in use half the time and half empty any time it is open.

It is most likely possible to eliminate use of the prefabs which are expensive to heat and use the already in place zebra crossing supervised by teachers to bring the kids across the road to the other schools better buildings.

There are probably many more facilities and equipment that could be shared between schools near each other. This could be made mandatory for schools wishing to get funds from the state so if private schools don't want to share, no problem.

macannrb

thebman wrote: »

Well its simple really. Taxes should not increase because people are demanding these services. Charges should be introduced/increased for these services if necessary to cover a short fall..

This raises the question, what are your taxes going on? if not on basic services which everyone is entitled to, are you suggesting that our taxes should go exclusively on debt and interest repayments. If this is the case, surely anyone able to leave the country would do so relatively quickly

thebman wrote: »

If people refuse to pay then the service will have to be provided for less.

Again this raised the question, if the service can't be provided for an acceptable price, even sharing prefabs and materials as you suggest, what happens then?

Take your schools example. Lets say a teacher costs (after pensions, training costs etc) 50k a year. And teaches 25 children. To cover other costs, principle, admin, heating etc, lets add another 50% onto the teacher cost. Thats a 3000 cost per school child. Now lets say with your cost saving ideas, overheads are reduced to 25%, that is a saving of 500 euro. Not bad. But plenty of people in Ireland can't pay that, on top of taxes. So then the next step would be to reduce the number of teachers, as we would have a lot less classrooms to fill.

While we have a right to eduction, using the concept, we would have less effective demand for the lots of other services, and as a result the service providers would need to be let go.

sarumite

kbannon wrote: »

How would you propose to make a service like education efficient?

The school year has been eroded over the years from above 200 days to 184 (for pimary education, not sure about secondary). I don't see any reason for this reduction in the number of days kids are at school and personally I think reversing this trend would be a help at making education more efficient.

gigino

sarumite wrote: »

The school year has been eroded over the years from above 200 days to 184 (for pimary education, not sure about secondary). I don't see any reason for this reduction in the number of days kids are at school and personally I think reversing this trend would be a help at making education more efficient.

Plus efficiency could be improved by having parent teacher meetings in the evenings after school , like in the UK. Also if teachers wages were reduced to EC norms, efficiency - bang for your buck - would be improved. If all teaching staff were qualified it would help. Also the curriculum should be looked at. Foreign companies here tell us our education system is not great. We fool ourselves by beleiving it is.

thebman

macannrb wrote: »

This raises the question, what are your taxes going on? if not on basic services which everyone is entitled to, are you suggesting that our taxes should go exclusively on debt and interest repayments. If this is the case, surely anyone able to leave the country would do so relatively quickly

I would suggest that if we were living efficiently and productively, the state would not need to be in debt or at least so heavily endebted. Our annual deficit needs to be reduced to zero just to stop inflating it.

Increasing taxes harms the economy and research shows you are better to cut spending than increase taxes. Cut your cloth to measure and if parts of society want more let them setup private operations that offer more and let them pay for it.

Again this raised the question, if the service can't be provided for an acceptable price, even sharing prefabs and materials as you suggest, what happens then?

Then we raise taxes or more likely at this stage, default.

Take your schools example. Lets say a teacher costs (after pensions, training costs etc) 50k a year. And teaches 25 children. To cover other costs, principle, admin, heating etc, lets add another 50% onto the teacher cost. Thats a 3000 cost per school child. Now lets say with your cost saving ideas, overheads are reduced to 25%, that is a saving of 500 euro. Not bad. But plenty of people in Ireland can't pay that, on top of taxes. So then the next step would be to reduce the number of teachers, as we would have a lot less classrooms to fill.

While we have a right to eduction, using the concept, we would have less effective demand for the lots of other services, and as a result the service providers would need to be let go.

Yes if we can let people go or reduce their wages we should do especially if they are above the norm. Why would a school teacher be on 50,000 a year? Seems high to me. I work more hours with less holidays in a highly skilled job for less. I think you could easily have teachers volunteer to take on some extra responsibility such as closing up the school and setting alarm and ordering some suppliers without being paid extra for it or parents could chip in their time and eliminate a lot of the admin work and costs there.

Again the problem is the option of increasing taxes to cover peoples wages is basically unacceptable when the situation is arising because people are losing jobs and have wages cut in most other areas of the economy. I see little reason why these public positions being funded by those people whose standards of living have been heavily affected should be sheltered.

Lockstep

One other possibility to improve education is to end the practice of allowing principles to hire unqualified teachers in primary schools. A worrying ward boss system.

Increasing teaching days is another.

RichardAnd

Lockstep wrote: »

One other possibility to improve education is to end the practice of allowing principles to hire unqualified teachers in primary schools. A worrying ward boss system.

Increasing teaching days is another.

True, it would help. However, I think a real improvement in education could be made by removing the age-old ideal that a child's education is the responcibility of the state.

Personally, the majority of what I know didn't come from a teacher, it came from my parents, relatives and my own interest in the world. My mother taught me to read when I was only 3 years old and I reached an adult level of literacy when I was 9. My father, one of the best engineers in the country taught me maths and my own inquisitive nature was condusive to me teaching myself music and various other things.

This may be a very grand thing to say but I see my years spent in school/college simply as little more than getting a stamp on a form. In other words, I picked up everything I needed elsewhere and the schooling was just to get the paper work.

If ever I have children, their education and development will be my responcibilty and not that of "qualifed" teachers. It's unfortunate, but I simply don't trust the education system in this country to instill real lessons and values to a child and even if I did, I believe such things are the responcibility of the parent anyway.

Granted, my own background is extremely privilaged and I'm not so sejunct from reality that I would assume all can enjoy the same fantastic upbringing I have but...perhaps it's time we reconsidered the value of paying millions to teachers when the end results are somewhat less than ought to be the case.