'State paid €530m to private schools in last five years'.

Dionysus

Over on The Irish Times website this evening is this objectionable headline.

State paid €530m to private schools in last five years

That's €530,000,000 paid to private, fee-paying schools in Ireland, €530 million which could be invested in a state-owned and operated education system rather than subsidising private, primarily religious, institutions. According to the article, €470 million of taxpayers' money was spent on teachers' salaries, while €60 million was spent on building private property for private organisations, assisting with the current expenditure of these private organisations, purchasing and maintaining private computers, and so forth.

The figures were revealed by Ruairí Quinn, the minister for Education, in answer to questions put by Maureen O'Sullivan TD in the Dáil.

Just look at the paltry amount of money given to disadvantaged schools in the same period. Ethically speaking this is stomach-turning, and obtuse in the extreme when one factors in the cost of crime in the future associated with neglecting deprived students today. It should be a no-brainer but alas the people who send their children to fee-paying schools are more likely to vote so the political establishment is very weary about touching this massive subsidy from the Irish taxpayer. Strip away all the fine-sounding political rhetoric about inclusiveness and this transfer of wealth away from a state education system exists because of votes. Over the medium term, the state would be much better off building its own schools and getting greater economies of scale from the money which they are currently handing over to private institutions.

---

State paid €530m to private schools in last five years

SEÁN FLYNN, Education Editor

PRIVATE FEE-PAYING schools received more than €530 million in support from the taxpayer in the past five years.

New figures show these schools received €38 million for current funding, €12 million for building projects, €2.6 million for computer supports and €1.2 million for clerical support during this period.

This was over and above the €470 million spent on teachers’ salaries in the same timeframe.

The revelations will increase the pressure on Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn to cut State funding to these schools. During the election campaign, Labour leader Éamon Gilmore signalled some change, expressing concern about a “two-tier” education system. But Mr Quinn has been broadly supportive of present arrangements since taking office.

The figures were revealed in the Dáil this week by Mr Quinn. In the same Dáil answer, he told Independent deputy Maureen O’Sullivan that €6.7 million had been provided from the Dormant Accounts Fund to disadvantaged schools during the same period. Total support for disadvantaged schools from this fund will be only €189,000 this year.

While the €100 million per year for teachers’ salaries has been publicised, the revelation the taxpayer is supporting building projects, computer equipment and other current funding in these schools will generate fresh controversy. The €38 million in current funding is the total under a support scheme for Protestant schools.

Last night, a spokeswoman for the Minister said that while €12.3 million had been spent on building projects in fee-paying schools since 2006, more than €846 million had been invested on capital projects in non-fee paying schools during the same period.

Fee-paying schools, she said, received 1.46 per cent of the capital grants awarded while accommodating 7.5 per cent of pupils.

She said none of the €40 million in school building projects – announced this week in the jobs initiative – will go to such schools.

Last month, Mr Quinn rejected calls by the Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) for the abolition of State support for fee-paying schools. TUI president Bernie Ruane said private schools had been repeatedly shown to be bottom of the table when it came to inclusivity, especially with regard to embracing students with special needs. She challenged Mr Quinn to address what she described as “educational apartheid”. Parents , she said, had to collect supermarket tokens to buy computers for public schools while the State funded “privileged schools can afford to build swimming pools and golf courses”.

The total number of students in fee-paying, second-level schools this year (26,277) has dipped only marginally – despite fees of over €5,000 per pupil per year.

The 2009 McCarthy report on public service reform estimated the 50-plus fee-paying schools generated about €100 million in annual fee income from parents. This is in addition to the €100 million per year from the State for teacher salaries.

---

Given our economic situation, should the state continue to redirect taxpayers' money into supporting the fee-paying school system, and indeed subsidising the building and maintenance of the private property used in that system?

irishdude11

Dionysus wrote: »

Just look at the paltry amount of money given to disadvantaged schools in the same period. Ethically speaking this is stomach-turning, and obtuse in the extreme when one factors in the cost of crime in the future associated with neglecting deprived students today.

Subsidizing the private schools is a disgrace but you are wrong on this point. The amount of money givin to disadvantaged schools is most certainly not paltry. These schools are getting money pumped in by the bucket. These 'disadvantaged' schools get more money per head than any other sector. I know of some of these primary schools with 10 pupils to a teacher. And most of the time it is, unfortunately, a waste because these kids are destined to grow up to be scumbags due to their parents.

TheZohanS

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

So what? If there were no private schools the state would end up paying even more for the students education.

If I had kids I'd do my best to send them to a private school.

irishdude11

TheZohan wrote: »

So what? If there were no private schools the state would end up paying even more for the students education.

Why should joe publics taxes go towards a school that his children aren't allowed into because the family doesnt have enough cash?

philologos

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

No state funding should be used for private schools. It's really simple, private school = private funding, public school = public funding.

delta_bravo

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

TheZohan wrote: »

So what? If there were no private schools the state would end up paying even more for the students education.

If I had kids I'd do my best to send them to a private school.

How so? The state pays for their wages already which is the primary cost in education at the moment.

TheZohanS

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

irishdude11 wrote: »

Why should joe publics taxes go towards a school that his children aren't allowed into because the family doesnt have enough cash?

If there were no public schools the State would have to pay even more money on additional public schools, it makes economic sense to keep funding these schools.

joe public also funds Universities, universities that not all students can get a place in, is there an outcry there? No.

Daegerty

fee-paying schools are for snobs.

thatsme

And what about all the taxes the parents who choose to send their kids to private schools pay?

In my experience the only people who give out about the private schools are those who cannot afford it or wont make the sacrifice to send their kids to one

Dudess

Be prepared for "begrudgery" comments - despite this figure, from the public kitty, being astronomical for something that is already funded.

I don't have a problem with fee-paying schools existing (as long as there are good facilities in them - some don't have good facilities, so what the fuk is being paid for?!) but it's not unfair to say some people only send their kids there for status reasons, nor is it unfair to say there are state schools as good, nor is it unfair to say a private education isn't necessarily as brilliant as is claimed. Teachers are teachers. And many people in private schools are likely to get grinds/go to those tuition college places pre-leaving cert. Plus, it's a rite of passage for people in private schools to go to college.

Both my brothers went to a fee-paying school btw (won scholarships some years but paid others) and say they will not be sending their kids to one. Fee-paying schools in Cork are nowhere near as expensive or elitist as those in Dublin, but my brothers said there was still some horrible snobbery there - even if it was an excellent school in terms of facilities (which is why they went there).

Daegerty

thatsme wrote: »

And what about all the taxes the parents who choose to send their kids to private schools pay?

In my experience the only people who give out about the private schools are those who cannot afford it or wont make the sacrifice to send their kids to one

Why would you bother. Private schools they are just little bubbles for rich kids to grow up in far detached from the real world

philologos

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

thatsme wrote: »

And what about all the taxes the parents who choose to send their kids to private schools pay?

They go to the public system. If people want extras in terms of education they pay for it.

thatsme wrote: »

In my experience the only people who give out about the private schools are those who cannot afford it or wont make the sacrifice to send their kids to one

I went to one for secondary level.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

children in fee paying school have tax paying parents, tax money which contributes to the education system in Ireland.

those schools are as entitled to that money as any other.

KH25

The entire system needs to be overhauled. There should be no such thing as a private school. All schools should be equally funded and equipped.

syklops

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

children in fee paying school have tax paying parents, tax money which contributes to the education system in Ireland.

those schools are as entitled to that money as any other.

Your speaking sense. Don't you know? Thats not allowed in After Hours. Now, if you came here with a knee jerk reaction then you would be welcomed with open arms.

philologos

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

those schools are as entitled to that money as any other.

I don't feel they are though. If people choose to bring their child to a private school, they are doing so on the expectation of parting with their own money. If not it would be a public school. There are many people who can't afford to have that advantage, and as a result the money should be used to bring up standards in other schools which need it. Tax which goes to the State is distributed as the State determines it should be. Areas / schools with most need come first IMO. Fee paying schools don't have such needs and as a result shouldn't see the money.

Dionysus

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

children in fee paying school have tax paying parents, tax money which contributes to the education system in Ireland.

those schools are as entitled to that money as any other.

Yes, they usually have paid tax. Then again, every single person (without exception) in the state pays tax into the same fund from which education is paid. Most of these people are, however, excluded from the fee-paying school system which would cease to exist without this obscene handout from the Irish state. At best, some of those schools would exist and instead of fees at €5500 per year, they would be closer to €15000 per year. Now, who's expecting handouts?

If you want to opt out of the state education system and pay for your own education, you are entirely entitled to do so. Good luck to you. I have no problem with that. You'll just have to pay for it all out of your own pocket. It is quite frankly parasitical to expect the state to subsidise your personal choice to reject the state education system and opt for a fee-paying school. What next - it redirects money from the public transport system to subsidise your new BMW on the grounds that you're a taxpayer and you don't wish to use the state transport system?

The only education system which taxes paid to this state should fund is a state education system.

Dionysus

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

syklops wrote: »

Your speaking sense. Don't you know? Thats not allowed in After Hours. Now, if you came here with a knee jerk reaction then you would be welcomed with open arms.

He's not; and neither, alas, are you.

true

people who save the state money by paying their hard earned money in to education should be treasured, they are saving the state money

dotsman

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

You tried to raise the last big thread on this from the dead just a few weeks ago.

Please see the following post from the last thread as it kills off any argument on this BS, socialist, sensationalist topic

Dionysus

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

true wrote: »

people who save the state money by paying their hard earned money in to education should be treasured, they are saving the state money

"People who save the state money" are clearly "saving the state money": that's a truism. Whether the parents who expect state funding for their choice to send their children to fee-paying schools are "saving the state money" is an entirely different matter. They aren't, but the current set-up where the taxpayer subsidises their aspirations for elitism certainly saves them an awful lot of money, while depriving the state education system of the same amount of money.

Dionysus

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

dotsman wrote: »

You tried to raise the last big thread on this from the dead just a few weeks ago.

Please see the following post from the last thread as it kills off any argument on this BS, socialist, sensationalist topic

In fact, it doesn't. For starters, only you are equating the private school system with the fee-paying secondary school system. Nowhere have I done that. Furthermore, you contend that fee-paying schools are not subsidised by the state, but you haven't shown that. Saying so doesn't make it true. It is clearly the state which is subsidising those parents who wish to avoid sending their children to the state-owned and administered education system. Only in some sectarian John Charles McQuaid mentality where the state "interferes" in the education system dominated by religious orders could this reality be inverted to one where the parents are "subsidising" the state.

Sonnenblumen

Dionysus wrote: »

Given our economic situation, should the state continue to redirect taxpayers' money into supporting the fee-paying school system, and indeed subsidising the building and maintenance of the private property used in that system?

Yes, amounts to small beans when compared to the money wasted on 'educating' people who go on to become criminals and impose more substantive B&B costs to the State with little or no Exchequer return.

Coriolanus

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

Sure, ban the public funding, but you're going to have to give people who send their kids private a tax credit to account for the money in your taxes that goes towards funding public schools.

Ickle Magoo

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

irishdude11 wrote: »

Why should joe publics taxes go towards a school that his children aren't allowed into because the family doesnt have enough cash?

And yet schools that can discriminate based on faith are supported - and indeed plentiful, making up almost all schools available.

I don't have an issue with state funds going towards private schools in a country where everyone with any particular ethos they wish can run a school and pick and choose their pupils based on whatever criterion they like - why not ability to pay...?

mikemac

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

Dionysus wrote: »

Just look at the paltry amount of money given to disadvantaged schools in the same period.

Nothing paltry about it, the disadvantaged areas have huge money pumped into them. Of course there are examples of neglected areas also.

Go to a disadvantaged area and you'll find playgrounds, youth clubs, maybe a leisure center, library and more.
So called disadvantaged areas often have more facilities then many areas considered better. And school facilities is just another example.

RMD

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

delta_bravo wrote: »

How so? The state pays for their wages already which is the primary cost in education at the moment.

It costs the state around 4200 euro to put a kid through private education while it costs 7600 to put a kid through public education. The main difference in the cost is the state only pays teachers fees and nothing else in private education, while in public education obviously everything is payed for including heating, cleaning, maintenance, capital grants etc.

Glenster

Simple solution. Intern all the poor. Replace them with compliant Eastern Europeans. Have our way with the Eastern Europeans. Breed a master race. Embark on a final solution. Use the bones and gold teeth of the poor to build new schools. Simples.

super_furry

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

That poll is poorly worded. No doubt the product of a state education.

My name is URL

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

They should receive no public funding.. and neither should any other school which can pick & choose its students.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

children in fee paying school have tax paying parents, tax money which contributes to the education system in Ireland.

those schools are as entitled to that money as any other.

Have to admit that this one post changed my entire view on the subject.

philologos

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't have an issue with state funds going towards private schools in a country where everyone with any particular ethos they wish can run a school and pick and choose their pupils based on whatever criterion they like - why not ability to pay...?

I believe that should be gotten rid of. It is possible to conceive of faith schools existing without such a block to entry.

Although I suspect that most Catholics would still go to a Catholic school, as most CofI would go to a CofI school.

gigino

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

philologos wrote: »

Although I suspect that most Catholics would still go to a Catholic school, as most CofI would go to a CofI school.

Is it true that the existing situation is that C of I people, if they wish to go to a school with a protestant ethos, have to pay school fees to go ....while catholics can go to a school with a catholic ethos easy enough without having to pay fees? So the existing situation, and the situation for many years, is that education is relatively free for us catholics and minorities have to pay school fees ?

philologos

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

gigino wrote: »

Is it true that the existing situation is that C of I people, if they wish to go to a school with a protestant ethos, have to pay school fees to go ....while catholics can go to a school with a catholic ethos easy enough without having to pay fees? So the existing situation, and the situation for many years, is that education is relatively free for us catholics and minorities have to pay school fees ?

In terms of secondary, but I think that is more an issue in respect to these schools rather than State discrimination. The CofI could get behind more public secondary schools if they wanted to, and there are a handful, but the vast majority are private.

In terms of primary there are no fees, just like the RCC setup.

gigino

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

Oh I see, its only at secondary school level that education is relatively free for us catholics and minorities have to pay school fees.( if they want the education to under their own ethos ).

philologos

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

No no no. Minorities don't have to pay fees generally, if the school is public. If the school decides to be private there are fees. There are RCC private schools as well. It's not demarcated on religion but on the type of school it decides to me. Most CofI secondary schools decide to be private for some odd reason. There are a handful of public schools, but this is down to decisions at a school level than at a State level. The State is totally impartial in respect to belief.

gigino

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

philologos wrote: »

Most CofI secondary schools decide to be private for some odd reason.

wonder why they do not go public so, if it meant their pupils would get a free education instead of having to pay substantial fees for it, just because they wanted an education for protestant second level kids under protestant ethos...while down the road catholics get a free education under catholic ethos.

ItsAWindUp

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

Why should taxpayer's money go towards these private schools, which turn out little snobs to go around with a superiority complex for the rest of their lives? And at the same time the government consider closing hospitals to cut back on money? What a joke this country is.

Mike 1972

I was under the impression that the overwhelming majority of schools in Ireland were privately owned (Roman Catholic Church) and fee paying ("voluntary" contributions) ???

philologos

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I was under the impression that the overwhelming majority of schools in Ireland were privately owned (Roman Catholic Church) and fee paying ("voluntary" contributions) ???

I think we're roughly defining private and public as follows:
By private we mean open to those willing to pay.
By public we mean those open to the public.

gigino

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

philologos wrote: »

By private we mean open to those willing to pay.

or having to pay. I am open to correcting but I think fees in fee paying schools are not voluntary ; if for example in certain areas you want your child to have an education under an ethos not catholic you have to pay school fees ? Some parents may scrape and make sacrifices in order for their kid(s) to be or not to be educated in a certain ethos.

philologos wrote: »

By public we mean those open to the public.

Are not all schools open to the public, but some require fees to be paid ( in order for the school in question to survive / stay open ), while others ( mostly catholic ) schools are paid entirely by the taxpayer?

Coriolanus

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

gigino wrote: »

Are not all schools open to the public, but some require fees to be paid, while others ( mostly catholic ) schools are paid entirely by the taxpayer?

A lot of them ask for voluntary contributions. Voluntarys meaning ranging from a note sent home with the child looking for the cheque, to the naming and shaming of families that haven't coughed up, on a publicly accessible website.

Mike 1972

philologos wrote: »

I think we're roughly defining private and public as follows:

gigino wrote: »

Are not all schools open to the public, but some require fees to be paid, while others ( mostly catholic ) schools are paid entirely by the taxpayer?

Seemingly there is no such thing as either a private school or a public school in Ireland ?

Theyre just "kinda private" or "sorta public"

Then again look at the healthcare "system"

dlofnep

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

It's disgusting considering the conditions the students in Gaelscoil Bharra had to operate in. 15 years in prefabs. And yet we have 530 million to pump into private schools?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLdnoWMDBwI

philologos

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

gigino wrote: »

or having to pay. I am open to correcting but I think fees in fee paying schools are not voluntary ; if for example in certain areas you want your child to have an education under an ethos not catholic you have to pay school fees ? Some parents may scrape and make sacrifices in order for their kid(s) to be or not to be educated in a certain ethos.

It isn't based on ethos that a school is private. A school decides to be. There are private RCC schools in Dublin as well. The CofI in particular has decided it should be fee paying, as has the Methodist Wesley College. Presumably because they think they can give a better education this way, only to the detriment of those who can't pay. Personally, I think there should be more CofI public schools.

gigino wrote: »

Are not all schools open to the public, but some require fees to be paid ( in order for the school in question to survive / stay open ), while others ( mostly catholic ) schools are paid entirely by the taxpayer?

Fees aren't for survival, they are generally for extras that the school feels it should require to give its students a better education.

gigino

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

Nevore wrote: »

....a publicly accessible website.

really ? what schools have such a " publicly accessible website " where parents who cannot afford to pay the thousands of euros of school fees ( in order for their kids to be educated in their own ethos ) are named and shamed ? Sounds almost unbelieveable.

Coriolanus

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

gigino wrote: »

really ? what schools have such a " publicly accessible website " where parents who cannot afford to pay the thousands of euros of school fees ( in order for their kids to be educated in their own ethos ) are named and shamed ? Sounds almost unbelieveable.

No, it was a public school, in Meath afair a few years back. They got in a bit of trouble over it. And it wasn't thousands, it was a few hundred.

I'll try and dig out a link.

Seanchai

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

Report and discussion (with Ruairí Quinn) about this at the moment on RTÉ 1's This Week. Listen here.

gigino

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

thanks for that , I was wondering. Are not most "non rcc ethos schoo"l fees thousands of euro a year which they have to charge if they have to survive, while nearly all catholic schools are 100% subsidised by the taxpayer.

I suppose there are some catholic fee paying schools in the country as well.

dotsman

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

Dionysus wrote: »

In fact, it doesn't. For starters, only you are equating the private school system with the fee-paying secondary school system. Nowhere have I done that.

That was point was referring to the common misconceptions regarding private schools.

Dionysus wrote: »

Furthermore, you contend that fee-paying schools are not subsidised by the state, but you haven't shown that. Saying so doesn't make it true. It is clearly the state which is subsidising those parents who wish to avoid sending their children to the state-owned and administered education system. Only in some sectarian John Charles McQuaid mentality where the state "interferes" in the education system dominated by religious orders could this reality be inverted to one where the parents are "subsidising" the state.

You are in love with the word "subsidised" which is the completely wrong way of looking at this.

Do you consider your security being "subsidised" by the state because they pay for the guards? Do you consider your health "subsidised" by the state because they pay doctors/nurses? Do you see non-fee-paying schools as "subsidised" by the state as the state pays all their teachers as well?

I have shown that fee-paying schools are not "subsidised" any more than a non-fee-paying school. If you can't see that, then you need professional help.

You cannot seem to understand a very simple concept:

• The state pays teachers in all schools.
• Teachers are supplied based on enrolment figures/catchment areas etc, and have nothing to do with fees.
• The state provides limited funds for facilities/structural improvements etc.
• Schools seek extra funding from external sources to compliment the state funding.
• This external funding typically consists of some/all of the following
  - Fundraiser events
  - Charitable donations
  - Funding from the religious order associated with the school (if applicable)
  - Voluntary contributions from parents
  - Involuntary fixed contributions from parents (ie a fee-paying structure)

All students receive the same funding from the state*. In the case of fee-paying schools, parents have chosen to contribute further, on top of the states basic provision, to their child's education. Indeed, a large portion of these fees do not actually get spent on the school in question. Instead, they get channelled by the religious orders into paying for other non-fee-paying schools. Thus, parents of fee-paying school students often end up "subsidising" non-fee-paying students.

*Special needs and students from "disadvantaged" backgrounds actually get more state funding.

mconigol

Typical begrudgery from the OP there.

Anyone in this country who tries to live to a certain standard is branded as having a superiority complex blah blah blah.....

Groups of people/parents come together all the time to set up schools that are state funded for their children e.g. educate together schools.

You could make the exact same argument about catholic schools admitting catholic children first.