The Frontline 3rd Oct 2011

Ally Dick

God, this show is slow off the mark this season. Tonight's topic is ever so slightly boring. When will we get a good row ?

JonathanAnon

Found that Trinity girl on Facebook.. good looking woman... It is very boring, nobody is speaking with any enthusiasm...

Ally Dick

Dunphy would be the ideal host to get a good argument going. Did you hear him talking to Gay Mitchell and Martin McGuinness yesterday ? Different class

JonathanAnon

Those figures for what fee paying cost the State vs non fee paying is incredible... Dont think we'll see any of the teachers unions on tonight... Just shows how badly managed the Education system is..

Idbatterim

why do parents feel the need to send kids to private schools here in the first place? Anyone who can afford this is likely paying through the nose on tax! massively subsidising every other sacred cow here! I know where they could find an extra 100 million, teachers wages, if they are so concerned, why not take a salary reduction? how about the pensioners? semi state workers etc?

take everything

Looks like it's first time on telly for this young one behind this guy.

Wildlife Actor

So the state pays the same amount per child whether they're in a public or private school (in fact less where they go to a private school). Yet that's unfair on those in public schools?

If parents decide to spend post-tax money on their chidren's education instead of holidays or drink, why the hell should they then pay a penalty. Apart from being illogical, that's discriminatory.

It's nothing but envy.

JonathanAnon

take everything wrote: »

Looks like it's first time on telly for this young one behind this guy.

lol, yeah... She got a bit of the "jaysus, look that's my big stupid head on the telly" giggles..

JonathanAnon

Jesus will they do something with the microphones.. every fkn week.. I've ever seen a program on any other channel have soooo much trouble with microphones..

I know where I saw that Trinity woman before.. ..

take everything

Kinda missed that but did that first young one just make the point "oh, along with grinding for school, you gotta grind for hpat now :mad:".

ascanbe

Love nor Money wrote: »

So the state pays the same amount per child whether they're in a public or private school (in fact less where they go to a private school). Yet that's unfair on those in public schools?

If parents decide to spend post-tax money on their chidren's education instead of holidays or drink, why the hell should they then pay a penalty. Apart from being illogical, that's discriminatory.

It's nothing but envy.

If parents wish to spend their 'post-tax money' on their children's education and have them privately educated then they should have every right.
However the state should not be involved in this.
The state should only be involved in providing an educational service that is available to all parents and their children on equal terms; if some parents feel that this system isn't good enough for their children then, by all means, let them pursue a different avenue, if they so wish.
It is your take on this issue that is actually 'illogical'; and your seeming need to make that final comment regarding 'envy', where you veer into suppositon, only serves to bear this out.

JonathanAnon

take everything wrote: »

Kinda missed that but did that first young one just make the point "oh, along with grinding for school, you gotta grind for hpat now :mad:".

She said that she was advised not to try to study for the Hpat the first time she did it, and she did not get accepted... She did it again the next year, with the help of a 250 euro online grind, and got 30% more than the previous year...

byhookorbycrook

Just shows how ill-informed the panel were: All children with special needs don't do Irish.:mad::mad::mad: Maybe you don't need to know any facts to get on the show.

Snickers Man

ascanbe wrote: »

If parents wish to spend their 'post-tax money' on their children's education and have them privately educated then they should have every right.
However the state should not be involved in this.
The state should only be involved in providing an educational service that is available to all parents and their children on equal terms; if some parents feel that this system isn't good enough for their children then, by all means, let them pursue a different avenue, if they so wish.

There are two corrolaries emanating from what you say:

Either
1) Parents who want to send their children to private schools, often because (as the woman from Donnybrook pointed out, they have no choice in the matter) can claim tax relief on the cost of the fees

or

2) They cannot claim tax relief so that effectively they can only pay for their own children's education AFTER they have paid for other people's.


Which of the above do you advocate?

Option 1 lets parents of kids at private schools off the tax hook completely for education, reducing the amount that could go to the department of education.

Option 2 is blatantly unfair. Especially to those far from wealthy parents who sweat to give their children a good start.

No matter what you do, in a free society you are going to get a trade off between private and public education. The minutiae of how this is achieved varies from society to society but the core issue remains the same: to what extent is education dictated by the state?

ascanbe

Snickers Man wrote: »

There are two corrolaries emanating from what you say:

Either
1) Parents who want to send their children to private schools, often because (as the woman from Donnybrook pointed out, they have no choice in the matter) can claim tax relief on the cost of the fees

or

2) They cannot claim tax relief so that effectively they can only pay for their own children's education AFTER they have paid for other people's.


Which of the above do you advocate?

Option 1 lets parents of kids at private schools off the tax hook completely for education, reducing the amount that could go to the department of education.

Option 2 is blatantly unfair. Especially to those far from wealthy parents who sweat to give their children a good start.

No matter what you do, in a free society you are going to get a trade off between private and public education. The minutiae of how this is achieved varies from society to society but the core issue remains the same: to what extent is education dictated by the state?

There aren't 'two corrolaries' emanating from what i wrote.
What i wrote is quite simple; a state should provide an education system that is open to all children on equal terms.
If there are parents who feel this isn't good enough for their kids and wish to place their kids outside of this system then good luck to them; they can make provisions for that and if there is a viable market/adequate numbers to sustain an alternative system that will furnish them with that opportunity, then they can pay the going rate for it.
It's really pretty simple..

Snickers Man

ascanbe wrote: »

If there are parents who....wish to place their kids outside of this system then good luck to them; they can make provisions for that and if there is a viable market/adequate numbers to sustain an alternative system that will furnish them with that opportunity, then they can pay the going rate for it.
It's really pretty simple..

Why should they pay twice? And why should they pay for somebody else's kids' education before they pay for their own?

You're dodging that issue.

amacachi

Snickers Man wrote: »

Why should they pay twice? And why should they pay for somebody else's kids' education before they pay for their own?

You're dodging that issue.

I think ascanbe is in favour of the state enforcing "equality" over personal choice.

Wildlife Actor

ascanbe wrote: »

If parents wish to spend their 'post-tax money' on their children's education and have them privately educated then they should have every right.
However the state should not be involved in this.
The state should only be involved in providing an educational service that is available to all parents and their children on equal terms; if some parents feel that this system isn't good enough for their children then, by all means, let them pursue a different avenue, if they so wish.
It is your take on this issue that is actually 'illogical'; and your seeming need to make that final comment regarding 'envy', where you veer into suppositon, only serves to bear this out.

Sorry, this reply's a bit stale. I went to bed after posting. Anyway, the point I am making is that if we start from the position that we cherish the children of the state equally, then we say they are entitled to an equal subvention. OK, so some kids are richer than others. Well no, actually, their parents are. Those parents pay more tax on their income because of that (assuming they're not dodging, but that's another, unconnected issue entirely). Now if you take the subvention from them because they (i.e. their parents) are richer, that's one thing: a means tested subvention. But that's not what was discussed. What ascanbe et al want is to take the subvention from them because their school happens to ask for something extra from their parents. That policy operates irrespective of whether those parents earn 50k or 500k per annum. That is illogical. Moreover it's downright unfair: by all means, let life be more expensive for richer people because they have more money (i.e. increase the high band tax rates), but do not punish parents because of where they choose to send their children to school.

The policy that ascanbe is promoting is not cost saving (the tv programme proved that). It is not a fairer distribution of the state's resources (because cutting the subvention by reference to the school rather than the parents' income disconnects the policy from the fair distribution objective). It is not good social policy (why have tax breaks for business expansion schemes, urban/rural development projects, agriculture etc, while having the reverse, a penalty, on those who choose to improve their children's education). The reality is that it is an attack on the schools and what they are perceived to stand for. That, I'm afraid, is envy.

I bet nobody reads this.

ascanbe

Snickers Man wrote: »

Why should they pay twice? And why should they pay for somebody else's kids' education before they pay for their own?

You're dodging that issue.

Pay twice? Pay for somebody else's kids' education before their own?
I don't understand. Did you read my post?

ascanbe

amacachi wrote: »

I think ascanbe is in favour of the state enforcing "equality" over personal choice.

I'm not.
As i made clear in my post, i have no problem with personal choice.
Did you read my post?

ascanbe

Love nor Money wrote: »

Sorry, this reply's a bit stale. I went to bed after posting. Anyway, the point I am making is that if we start from the position that we cherish the children of the state equally, then we say they are entitled to an equal subvention. OK, so some kids are richer than others. Well no, actually, their parents are. Those parents pay more tax on their income because of that (assuming they're not dodging, but that's another, unconnected issue entirely). Now if you take the subvention from them because they (i.e. their parents) are richer, that's one thing: a means tested subvention. But that's not what was discussed. What ascanbe et al want is to take the subvention from them because their school happens to ask for something extra from their parents. That policy operates irrespective of whether those parents earn 50k or 500k per annum. That is illogical. Moreover it's downright unfair: by all means, let life be more expensive for richer people because they have more money (i.e. increase the high band tax rates), but do not punish parents because of where they choose to send their children to school.

The policy that ascanbe is promoting is not cost saving (the tv programme proved that). It is not a fairer distribution of the state's resources (because cutting the subvention by reference to the school rather than the parents' income disconnects the policy from the fair distribution objective). It is not good social policy (why have tax breaks for business expansion schemes, urban/rural development projects, agriculture etc, while having the reverse, a penalty, on those who choose to improve their children's education). The reality is that it is an attack on the schools and what they are perceived to stand for. That, I'm afraid, is envy.

I bet nobody reads this.

I just read it.
What i wrote is quite clear; the state, using the resources of the state, should only be involved in providing an education system that is available to all children on equal terms. This is the definition of 'fair'.
Just as the state, using the resources of the state, provides a road network available to all citizens on equal terms.
If some people feel the education system provided by the state is not good enough for their children then, by all means, let them use the wealth at their disposal to pursue other avenues.
What's so hard to understand about this?
If some peopole feel the road-network of this state isn't up to their standards should they get together with others of a like mind-set and say 'we'll put up a certain amount of money and we want the state to subsidise us in creating another road network available only to those who can pay a certain fee and can pass the other entry requirments that will be subject to our discretion'?
I guess a group of people could do that, but if they did, they'd, rightly, be laughed at.

Wildlife Actor

Don't want to life support a dying thread but ascanbe, the road thing is not an analogy at all. The economics of roads is completely different to education subvention. Roads are fixed cost. Education subvention is on a student by student basis. If class sizes of 500 were more efficient than class sizes of 20 then there might be some relative factors but in fact there are none.

Here's a better one. Say you've got 2 neighbours in local authority housing paying, say E45 per week. One decides to enhance their house with a seomra wooden room in the back garden. On ascanbe's logic, the local authority house isn't good enough for them so they should be charged full market rent for it. All they are doing is putting their own money into improving what is given to them at subsidised rates.