Public funding of private schools.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I was reading an article by Gene Kerrigan in yesterdays Sunday Independent on the supposed immunity of elite groups from the effects of the recession and one aspect of the column stood out to me in particular. Kerrigan raises the issue of private fee-paying schools receiving taxpayers money....

Red Ruairi firmly rejected any suggestion that the State should stop subsidising private schools to the tune of a hundred million a year. This isn't just a matter of saving money -- these schools have long been accused of operating discriminatory policies that perpetuate the cocoon.

They're entitled to do so if they're private entities selling an educational product to an affluent customer base. But the rest of us shouldn't have to subsidise such private businesses.

In relation to something else, last week I found myself on the website of one of those bastions of private education, Gonzaga College. While scrolling around, I chanced upon the admissions policy -- which has a heavy dynastic bias --and found that the school takes only practising Catholic boys, who "must be resident south of the River Liffey".

No northsiders need apply? This might be defended as relating to proximity to the school -- but northside Drumcondra and East Wall are closer to Gonzaga than are southside Killiney and Dalkey.

Very odd.

Link... http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/gene-kerrigan/gene-kerrigan-id-love-to-be-a-judge-if-i-had-the-latin-2634446.html

I was wondering what other peoples opinions are on this? I'm personally totally opposed to the concept of private fee-paying schools and I believe it shows how "Socialist" Quinn really is when hes unwilling to confront this issue. But what do others think?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sid_Justice

Parents should be allowed send their children to any school they want. This includes 'private schools'. Private schools subsidise the cost of education with fees.

People that pay fees pay tax. Tax pays for schools. If you take away public funding for private schools, the vast majority would shut. You would need more public schools to teach the surplus of students. Joe bloggs with a chip on his shoulder about private schools loses money.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I believe they should be transformed into public schools.

I'd assume you would have a problem with the state funding, but would be in favour of private schools?

Laminations

My view is that you shouldn't be allowed ring fence your tax contributions with an inhibitory 'top up' from your personal wealth that excludes other tax payees so that you keep the benefits of your taxes to yourself. If you want to pay for grinds on top of public school feel free but creating a divide in the school system is not good for the children.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Parents should be allowed send their children to any school they want. This includes 'private schools'. Private schools subsidise the cost of education with fees.

People that pay fees pay tax. Tax pays for schools. If you take away public funding for private schools, the vast majority would shut. You would need more public schools to teach the surplus of students. Joe bloggs with a chip on his shoulder about private schools loses money.

As it stands, Joe Bloggs pays for schools his children can never go to.

invinciblePRSTV

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Parents should be allowed send their children to any school they want. This includes 'private schools'. Private schools subsidise the cost of education with fees.

No one is arguing that parents can't send their kids to any school they want, it's that tax payers shouldn't be subsidising nominally private institutions.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

People that pay fees pay tax. Tax pays for schools. If you take away public funding for private schools, the vast majority would shut. You would need more public schools to teach the surplus of students. Joe bloggs with a chip on his shoulder about private schools loses money.

Really what it'll entail is the teachers in private schools whose wages are paid for by the state will be redeployed to public schools where, presumably, the pupils would go to. That is of course if the pupils parents have decided not to pay the going rate in private institutions once public subsidies are taken out of the equation.

Of course the public subsidising private schools is a red button issue for middle Ireland, like healthcare entitlements and welfare provisions, they demand privilege. It's one of those little things that all adds to make this banana republic what it is, a truly great little country as Gene Kerrigan would no doubt describe it.

Jim236

Anyone who thinks you need to go to a private school to get a good education is a fool.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Jim236 wrote: »

Anyone who thinks you need to go to a private school to get a good education is a fool.

I agree, but somebody who was educated at Gonzaga or Blackrock has an advantage over somebody who wasn't even if its just due to the snobbishness or clique attitude of an employer. And the state is acting in a manner which perpetuates this.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

donegal11

If the schools where in the public system wouldn't the majority of the pupils be nearly the exact same, in that most of the schools are in affluent areas where they can easily afford fees(D4). The only difference would be more expense on the state and a reduced teacher ratio at said schools. Also all the schools transfered to the public system would be oversubscribed and more then likely be run by the same staff who would be currently choosing enrolements meaning no real difference.

silverharp

Jim236 wrote: »

Anyone who thinks you need to go to a private school to get a good education is a fool.

yes and no, some private schools offer choices that you dont get in state schools, there are a couple of private schools in Dublin for instance that do German and French from the start of primary. It might also be a way of dodging a religious run school. Also if certain schools have a poor reputation because of the students that go there, the only option maybe a local private school.
I would probably agree in many cases you are not paying for better teachers but the environment maybe calmer so more gets done.

invinciblePRSTV

donegal11 wrote: »

If the schools where in the public system wouldn't the majority of the pupils be nearly the exact same, in that most of the schools are in affluent areas where they can easily afford fees(D4). The only difference would be more expense on the state and a reduced teacher ratio at said schools. Also all the schools transfered to the public system would be oversubscribed and more then likely be run by the same staff who would be currently choosing enrolements meaning no real difference.

You're misunderstanding how the funding mechanism works donegal11. It's the teacher's salary which is paid for by the state in private schools, nothing else bar the occasional bit of patronage thrown their way in the form of grants comes from the state (I'm looking at you Mary Hanafin).

These teachers, or their salaries, could easily be moved to publicly funded schools, so any cost to the state borne by students transferring to public schools would be met by the increase in teachers available.

That is of course if private schools choose not to employ the teachers on salaries paid for by the schools themselves rather then the states or that parents choose to keep their children in fee-paying schools.

melekalikimaka

i went to both public and private, and from my own experience i will never send a child of mine to a public school,

donegal11

If the private schools were closed/moved to public system wouldn't the state have to buy the said schools or build new schools to meet the additional needs at considerable cost. "If" the cost of building/buying/running schools is more expensive then subsidizing wouldn't the existing arrangement be more cost effective.

As far as equality is concerned I would bet even in public owernship the schools would have the nearly exact same students enrolments due to there locations and history. Would someone from ballymun feel comfortable in a (former)private school on the south side ?

invinciblePRSTV

donegal11 wrote: »

If the private schools were closed/moved to public system wouldn't the state have to buy the said schools or build new schools to meet the additional needs at considerable cost. "If" the cost of building/buying/running schools is more expensive then subsidizing wouldn't the existing arrangement be more cost effective.

Why would the state have to buy school buildings? you're presupposing that private schools will automatically have to shut down if state subsidies are taken away, this isn't necessarily the case as i imagine many parents will still choose to have their kids privately educated.

"If" the state finds that it needs to accomodate pupils then the costs of hiring portacabins or waiting to build school extensions will still be a relatively minor one off cost as compared to paying the salaries of teachers in private schools year-after-year.

donegal11 wrote: »

As far as equality is concerned I would bet even in public owernship the schools would have the nearly exact same students enrolments due to there locations and history. Would someone from ballymun feel comfortable in a (former)private school on the south side ?

There's only one way to test your hypotheses.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

A lot of currently public schools were once private, including the one I attended. Most seem to have managed the transformation smoothly enough.

donegal11

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

"If" the state finds that it needs to accomodate pupils then the costs of hiring portacabins or waiting to build school extensions will still be a relatively minor one off cost as compared to paying the salaries of teachers in private schools year-after-year.

Will the teachers work for free in public schools
Won't they have to heated and maintained from public money.

Say a normal student from a working/middle class background went to a (former) private/new school in south dublin.Wouldn't she/he be at a disadvantage compared to their upper class colleagues when it came to expensive field trips and extra curricular activities which I doubt would stop just be cause it was a public school.

I don't like the state funding private institutions but if it's at a cheaper cost then so be it. Class distinction won't just stop because everyone goes to the same school.

HavingCrack

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think the main issue is that they aren't really "private" though. The Institue of Education and the other grind schools in Galway and Cork (don't know the names) are the only truly 'private' institutions. They take no money from tax payers as the fees pay for the buildings and teachers salaries. Interestingly it's only about €1000 dearer per anum than many of the nominally private schools. If you can afford to pay 6000 a year I'd imagine most people could streach an extra 1000 if all nominally private schools were forced to pay for their teachers salaries.

I have no issue with private schools that are 100% self funded.

invinciblePRSTV

donegal11 wrote: »

Will the teachers work for free in public schools
Won't they have to heated and maintained from public money.

As already has been outlined to you, the state is already paying the teachers who work in private schools, that's the whole point!

As for heating and maintenance, well I'm sure the state should just be about able to cover that, you're clutching at straws really trying to justify the status quo with this suggestion tbh.

donegal11 wrote: »

Say a normal student from a working/middle class background went to a (former) private/new school in south dublin.Wouldn't she/he be at a disadvantage compared to their upper class colleagues when it came to expensive field trips and extra curricular activities which I doubt would stop just be cause it was a public school.

So we shouldn't end the state subsidising private schools because some kids might not be able to afford to go on school trips? could the school not just arrange a school trip or extra curricular activities that anyone can afford?

donegal11 wrote: »

I don't like the state funding private institutions but if it's at a cheaper cost then so be it. Class distinction won't just stop because everyone goes to the same school.

Class politics aside, private schools will still be there once the state withdraws its subsidies.

Jim236

silverharp wrote: »

yes and no, some private schools offer choices that you dont get in state schools, there are a couple of private schools in Dublin for instance that do German and French from the start of primary. It might also be a way of dodging a religious run school. Also if certain schools have a poor reputation because of the students that go there, the only option maybe a local private school.
I would probably agree in many cases you are not paying for better teachers but the environment maybe calmer so more gets done.

I was offered German and French in the primary school I went to which wasn't private. I know not every primary school offers this but I'm just making the point again that you don't need to go to a private school to be offered those kind of opportunities.

uberwolf

The state pays all teachers salaries (the grind schools excepted).

Thereafter, the state pays the administration and facilities costs of the public schools but not the private schools?

donegal11

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

to build school extensions will still be a relatively minor one off cost as compared to paying the salaries of teachers in private schools year-after-year.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

the state is already paying the teachers who work in private schools, that's the whole point

the passage I quoted earlier you stated the cost of building schools was minor cost vs paying private teachers. yet in a public school you would still be paying them, you made it sound like a saving.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

private schools will still be there once the state withdraws its subsidies

No doubt there will be private schools if the state withdraws funding but how much will it cost to replace the ones that do close?

RandolphEsq

People who equate taking away state funding from private schools to better quality of public schools are wrong. The benefit would not be much at all. Parents who choose to send their children to private schools are tax payers too, so as taxpayers they are entitled to free education like everybody else. These parents prefer private education however so choose to free up the money in their household budgets to pay the extra fees associated with private education. It isn't like the parents are all 'loaded', sacrifices are made in other aspects of their lives.

It's ignorant begrudging to equate parents who pay for private fees with being wealthy. This assumes that these parents casually choose to send their children to private schools, but there are massive sacrifices for most families to send their children to private schools. If they wish to put extra money into a school (on top of the tax money that they pay) it is their choice and shouldn't be held against them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

milosh

The vast majority of the private school's would remain private if the state subsidy ended. The cost of attending these schools would rise by about 25%.
Private primary schools such as Willow Park and St Gerard's do not receive any state funding for teacher's salaries and continue to thrive.

Ability to pay should never have any influence on the education that someone gets. Countries with the best education attainment have equality of access for everyone.


Plenty of schools have gone from fee-paying to free over the years (such as Wislon's Hospital recently).

silverharp

Jim236 wrote: »

I was offered German and French in the primary school I went to which wasn't private. I know not every primary school offers this but I'm just making the point again that you don't need to go to a private school to be offered those kind of opportunities.

I cant imagine there are many schools that take continental languages seriously from infants.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You've summed up my position fairly well. I believe that the continuing existence of such schools is detrimental to equality of opportunity.

silverharp

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

You've summed up my position fairly well. I believe that the continuing existence of such schools is detrimental to equality of opportunity.

you cant have those parents who have invested in their own futures wanting the same for their kids? You are missing out on the motivations that help us "get up in the morning". Equality of opportunity is essentially a myth, if you have parents or a deliquent peer group with no interest in education the kids in question will be more hadicapped then whether some of their competition is going to private schools or not. Easy to wrap the blame up in a neat bundle when its not the key to the issue

HavingCrack

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah ok, I must have missed that part.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

You've summed up my position fairly well. I believe that the continuing existence of such schools is detrimental to equality of opportunity.

But effectively you're telling parents they aren't allowed educate their children privately even if they pay for the full cost of the salaries, land, buildings etc.? I have to admit, I find this statism at its worst.

Equality of opportunity is inherently a myth. It can never exist. Your proposals won't make anyone more equal, it will just reduce the education standards of some children and will not benefit anyone. I have no issue with fully private schools but the suggestion that these shouldn't be allowed exist is absurd. Using that criteria, where do you stop? Should private business be allowed?

Jim236

RandolphEsq wrote: »

People who equate taking away state funding from private schools to better quality of public schools are wrong. The benefit would not be much at all. Parents who choose to send their children to private schools are tax payers too, so as taxpayers they are entitled to free education like everybody else. These parents prefer private education however so choose to free up the money in their household budgets to pay the extra fees associated with private education. It isn't like the parents are all 'loaded', sacrifices are made in other aspects of their lives.

It's ignorant begrudging to equate parents who pay for private fees with being wealthy. This assumes that these parents casually choose to send their children to private schools, but there are massive sacrifices for most families to send their children to private schools. If they wish to put extra money into a school (on top of the tax money that they pay) it is their choice and shouldn't be held against them.

I'd say theres a lot of poor families struggling to put their kids through private school in Ballsbridge is there?

irishh_bob

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Parents should be allowed send their children to any school they want. This includes 'private schools'. Private schools subsidise the cost of education with fees.

People that pay fees pay tax. Tax pays for schools. If you take away public funding for private schools, the vast majority would shut. You would need more public schools to teach the surplus of students. Joe bloggs with a chip on his shoulder about private schools loses money.

people ( the rich ) who buy mercedes cars pay tax , usually in larger amounts than those who buy fiats , do you think the cost of a merc should be state subsidised

RMD

The average private school is cheaper per student than the average public school as the only money they receive is for employing teachers. Other costs on top of that are all paid for by the school instead of claiming it from the government. Take away subsidies from private schools and the fees shoot up, the majority of parents can no longer afford to send their kids there and the school ultimately closes. Now the department of education still has to pay these teachers, but also find a new facility to educate the children whose parents can't afford the unsubsidized fees. This also leads to much greater costs as other local schools must be expanded so there's necessary room to take on the new wave of children.

Not to mention the parents already pay taxes just like everyone else and are therefore funding the private schools just as much as anyone else. They're paying for the teachers with their taxes, their paying for whatever else the school offers with the fees. Don't like the idea of a private school, don't send your kids there. Can't afford private school fees, apply to the schools which offer scholarship schemes.

invinciblePRSTV

RandolphEsq wrote: »

People who equate taking away state funding from private schools to better quality of public schools are wrong.

How are they wrong?

RandolphEsq wrote: »

The benefit would not be much at all. Parents who choose to send their children to private schools are tax payers too, so as taxpayers they are entitled to free education like everybody else. These parents prefer private education however so choose to free up the money in their household budgets to pay the extra fees associated with private education. It isn't like the parents are all 'loaded', sacrifices are made in other aspects of their lives.

In otherwords you want John Q taxpayer to continue subsidising people's choices to send their kids privately. Spin the line about how parents who send their kids to private schools are taxpayers too, that's fine. But why should citizen taxpayer X, who might not not be able to afford, or who's offspring might not be deemed worthy of entry into private schools continue to pick up the tab for people who want all the benefits of private education but are unwilling to pay the full cost of it?

RandolphEsq wrote: »

It's ignorant begrudging to equate parents who pay for private fees with being wealthy. This assumes that these parents casually choose to send their children to private schools, but there are massive sacrifices for most families to send their children to private schools. If they wish to put extra money into a school (on top of the tax money that they pay) it is their choice and shouldn't be held against them.

As i said already, private schools will still exist once subsidies are removed. If people want to send their kids there they'll still be able to do so.

invinciblePRSTV

RMD wrote: »

The average private school is cheaper per student than the average public school as the only money they receive is for employing teachers. Other costs on top of that are all paid for by the school instead of claiming it from the government. Take away subsidies from private schools and the fees shoot up, the majority of parents can no longer afford to send their kids there and the school ultimately closes. Now the department of education still has to pay these teachers, but also find a new facility to educate the children whose parents can't afford the unsubsidized fees. This also leads to much greater costs as other local schools must be expanded so there's necessary room to take on the new wave of children.

Firstly I'd wager many private schools will still continue to function without subsidies.

Secondly I'd wager there is excess capacity in the public schools within private schools catchment areas as is.

Thirdly the opportunity cost of building larger schools with more facilities and teachers is greater then the system as is and will result in improved school subject choices and healther social mixes.

RMD wrote: »

Not to mention the parents already pay taxes just like everyone else and are therefore funding the private schools just as much as anyone else. They're paying for the teachers with their taxes, their paying for whatever else the school offers with the fees. Don't like the idea of a private school, don't send your kids there. Can't afford private school fees, apply to the schools which offer scholarship schemes.

Don't kid yourself. Just about every citizen is a taxpayer, and every taxpayer is subsidising these schools. If you want your offspring to be privately educated then don't be expecting me or anyone else to pay for it.

Sid_Justice

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Of course the public subsidising private schools is a red button issue for middle Ireland, like healthcare entitlements and welfare provisions, they demand privilege. It's one of those little things that all adds to make this banana republic what it is, a truly great little country as Gene Kerrigan would no doubt describe it.

Let's say you had children. Let's say you needed to pick a secondary school. Let's say there are 2 perfectly reasonable secondary schools in your vicinity, one public and one private. Admissions are equal. The private school is an extra 1000 euro per student per year. The only difference is the private school has a swimming pool, a rugby team and a football(soccer) team. The public school has a GAA team coached by the Religion teacher.

Why do you feel it would be wrong for the private school to exist?

Sid_Justice

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Don't kid yourself. Just about every citizen is a taxpayer, and every taxpayer is subsidising these schools. If you want your offspring to be privately educated then don't be expecting me or anyone else to pay for it.

I have no children, why should my tax subsidise your public school? I have never been sick in my life, why should my tax pay for public hospitals. I have no car and walk to work, why should my tax pay for public roads? I have no interest in sports, why should my tax go to the GAA. I have <insert part of community I don't engage in> why should I pay tax for it?

Lockstep

Public funding going to private schools is a form of middle-class welfare which doesn't sit right with me. Of course private schools should be available for those willing to pay the costs and I don't think they should be banned, but having low-middle earners funding a service (through taxes) that they can't afford isn't something that I'd feel comfortable with.

If you want to send your child to a private school, fine. Pay the costs yourself or send your kid to a public school. How anyone can defend public funding of private schools is beyond me.

RandolphEsq

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

In otherwords you want John Q taxpayer to continue subsidising people's choices to send their kids privately. Spin the line about how parents who send their kids to private schools are taxpayers too, that's fine. But why should citizen taxpayer X, who might not not be able to afford, or who's offspring might not be deemed worthy of entry into private schools continue to pick up the tab for people who want all the benefits of private education but are unwilling to pay the full cost of it?
As i said already, private schools will still exist once subsidies are removed. If people want to send their kids there they'll still be able to do so.

By the full cost of it you mean the taxes they pay on top of the private school fees. Taking away state-funding for private schools should then mean that for parents who wish to send their kids to private school should not contribute tax to the state-funded education-kitty. Or would you require them to pay tax towards state-funded education even though they are not benefiting from it? If you are then that is mightily unfair. Why do you wish to punish parents who want to pump that bit extra into a school in order to allow that school greater infrastructure for providing an education for their child? It is a choice that should not be punished.

Jim236 wrote: »

I'd say theres a lot of poor families struggling to put their kids through private school in Ballsbridge is there?

No, not really I'd guess.

Jim236

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Let's say you had children. Let's say you needed to pick a secondary school. Let's say there are 2 perfectly reasonable secondary schools in your vicinity, one public and one private. Admissions are equal. The private school is an extra 1000 euro per student per year. The only difference is the private school has a swimming pool, a rugby team and a football(soccer) team. The public school has a GAA team coached by the Religion teacher.

Why do you feel it would be wrong for the private school to exist?

Is there something wrong with playing GAA? And whats to say the Rugby team in the private school wouldn't be coached by a religion teacher? And since when is Rugby/Soccer not offered in public schools and GAA not offered in private schools?

HavingCrack

Jim236 wrote: »

Is there something wrong with playing GAA? And whats to say the Rugby team in the private school wouldn't be coached by a religion teacher? And since when is Rugby/Soccer not offered in public schools and GAA not offered in private schools?

To be fair I only know of one "private" school in Dublin that plays GAA.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

As it stands, Joe Bloggs pays for schools his children can never go to.

.. and in most cases would never want to go to.

Jim236

HavingCrack wrote: »

To be fair I only know of one "private" school in Dublin that plays GAA.

Yeh fair enough but there are plenty of public schools that have soccer and rugby teams.

I don't see why a private school offering rugby and a public school offering GAA should be a reason to opt for private education. Its a snobby remark to make, as if to say GAA is only played by public school scumbags. When we know GAA is the only sport in Ireland that is played by all sections of society.

melekalikimaka

Jim236 wrote: »

When we know GAA is the only sport in Ireland that is played by all sections of society.

very sweeping statements in general by you here. could say the same about any sport.

this is turning into a chip on shoulder thread like previous ones on this topic.


everyone pays tax, tax pays schools... private schools get same funding as public, difference is the private ones request a top up from parents to improve the experience for the child... yes it gives the child better facilities... hardly a bad thing, sure why earn money if you can't better the lives of your child?

Spudmonkey

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

You've summed up my position fairly well. I believe that the continuing existence of such schools is detrimental to equality of opportunity.

Whatever about part funding private education, you seem to be advocating a lowest common denominator when it comes to education. Bit extreme if you ask me.

irishh_bob

Lockstep wrote: »

Public funding going to private schools is a form of middle-class welfare which doesn't sit right with me. Of course private schools should be available for those willing to pay the costs and I don't think they should be banned, but having low-middle earners funding a service (through taxes) that they can't afford isn't something that I'd feel comfortable with.

If you want to send your child to a private school, fine. Pay the costs yourself or send your kid to a public school. How anyone can defend public funding of private schools is beyond me.

most people are middle class , most people dont go to private schools , its a form of upper middle class wellfare

Lockstep

irishh_bob wrote: »

most people are middle class , most people dont go to private schools , its a form of upper middle class wellfare

A fair point.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

HavingCrack wrote: »

Equality of opportunity is inherently a myth. It can never exist.

It will probably never truly exist, but that doesn't mean we can't seek to make opportunity for all as equal as possible. Keep in mind that this issue isn't about equality of outcome, merely equality of opportunity.

Jim236 wrote: »

Yeh fair enough but there are plenty of public schools that have soccer and rugby teams.

I don't see why a private school offering rugby and a public school offering GAA should be a reason to opt for private education. Its a snobby remark to make, as if to say GAA is only played by public school scumbags. When we know GAA is the only sport in Ireland that is played by all sections of society.

I don't think thats entirely true, soccer is probably more popular throughout the country. And GAA isn't a single sport its two entirely different sports only one of which is popular in most areas of the country.

I think this attitude that a person must attend an elite school to be successful at rugby is a problem. GAA was once like this but thankfully it isn't as centered around certain boarding schools anymore.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Whatever about part funding private education, you seem to be advocating a lowest common denominator when it comes to education. Bit extreme if you ask me.

I think its extreme that an individual should have access to a better education simply because their parents are wealthier. But I guess thats just me.

invinciblePRSTV

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I have no children, why should my tax subsidise your public school? I have never been sick in my life, why should my tax pay for public hospitals. I have no car and walk to work, why should my tax pay for public roads? I have no interest in sports, why should my tax go to the GAA. I have <insert part of community I don't engage in> why should I pay tax for it?

What argument are you trying to make here? If it's as a rebuttal ot my suggestion that the Irish taxpayer shouldn't be subsidising private schools then it's a poor one. I'm quite content for tax money to provide a state funded education system, but not for giving subsidies to parents so they can send their kids to private schools.

RandolphEsq wrote: »

By the full cost of it you mean the taxes they pay on top of the private school fees. Taking away state-funding for private schools should then mean that for parents who wish to send their kids to private school should not contribute tax to the state-funded education-kitty. Or would you require them to pay tax towards state-funded education even though they are not benefiting from it?

Why should any citizen receive opt outs from paying taxes? by your logic i should be liable to not pay taxes for the healthcare i don't receive, the roads i don't drive on or the social welfare i don't receive.

Wouldn't it be a great laugh all together if we could just pick n mix the taxes we are obliged to pay?

RandolphEsq wrote: »

If you are then that is mightily unfair. Why do you wish to punish parents who want to pump that bit extra into a school in order to allow that school greater infrastructure for providing an education for their child? It is a choice that should not be punished.

No one is stopping parents from giving their kids schools money, just removing public subsidies from the equation.

Laminations

I love the way the private school benefitters are now trying to frame this as if they are sending their kids to these schools for the benefit of the state, as if it saves us money so we should be glad. Without even getting into the truths about it saving money, saving money at the expense of inequitibility is money poorly spent.

dan_d

I agree with Lockstep - state funding should not be available for private schools.

I pay taxes to the health system, but my health insurance will cover any medical bills I might have in the future. I pay health insurance so that I have some peace of mind about the level of access and service I might get from any future use of the health services. My choice? Yup. But equally, the parents of the kids in these schools have a choice aswell - to send their child to a public or a private school. They chose to pay the extra money and send them to a private school.That's fine, but there's no justification for the state continuing to fund that school.

Parents send their children to these schools for plenty of reasons, chief among them being mixing with the "right" type of person, supposedly a better education, because it's their alma mater, so they'll have more chances....the list is endless. There's also the little issue of the "League Tables" published by the IT every year, which often feeds into the notion that private schools have more pupils going on to college, and which many parents fall for, hook, line and sinker....when that isn't often the case (again, the usual lack of understanding regarding statistics and how the tables are put together....100% college students in a year of 90 private school pupils in a school, vs say, 60% in a year of 190 public school pupils - that's actually more students from the public than the private going on to college....)

I went to a public school but had many cousins my own age that went to private schools. I didn't see any benefit to them - in fact, myself and my siblings (and in one case, one of their siblings in our school) did a lot better than them in both the JC, the Leaving, and college. Course it depends on what you want from a school as a parent, but education didn't appear to be high on the list in their cases.

As for the rugby-playing schools....that's a phenomenon that seems to be limited to mainly Leinster, mostly Dublin. Down the country, there's a much bigger mix of people playing rugby, regardless of background.

If you want to send your kid to private school, knock yourself out. But the state should not be supporting these schools.If you're rich enough to send a child to private school, then I'm pretty sure you're rich enough to afford a bit extra on your fees.