17,000 euros pa to send a Child to Clongowes

alex73

17,000 euros a year to send a Child to Clongowes (where O'leary went I believe)

If you can afford it great... I am sure the O'Leary family got a return on their investment.

but the state is also funding the same school!.....

If a family can afford 85,000 euros of 5 years to send their son there then the can afford to pay the full price? (and maybe get tax relief on it ?)

Why should the state have to pay for private schools???

There are a lot of working poor who are paying the new charges, I think the rich with their private schools funded by the state could help.



(Conglowes annual fee income of €7.4 million -- the 450 students)

doc_17

I suppose the arguement that might be made is that the "rich" pay their fair share ( and a lot of other peoples' share as well ) in taxes and if they want to subsidise their own child's education then they are entitled to it.

alex73

doc_17 wrote: »

I suppose the arguement that might be made is that the "rich" pay their fair share ( and a lot of other peoples' share as well ) in taxes and if they want to subsidise their own child's education then they are entitled to it.

OK... Then let them go to state schools and if they want to subsidise the Child's Education well and good.

I agree with your point.. And if we did not have to make cuts it would be fine. .. But don't you think that when having to make a choice between poorer schools and schools who's fees are in excess of 17K that it would be better to target the rich.

You can be sure that the families of the 450 kids in Clongowes wood can afford the extra fees. State could give them a tax rebate at standard rate in leau ?

pebbles21

Im sure Mr O Leary has paid more than his fair share back into the economy since,and if schools like this produce more Mr O Leary's then i don't see a problem tbh...

n900guy

alex73 wrote: »

If a family can afford 85,000 euros of 5 years to send their son there then the can afford to pay the full price? (and maybe get tax relief on it ?)

Why should the state have to pay for private schools???

The state funds it the same as it does any school in the state.

And the rich taxpayers who can afford Clongowes' fees are also likely paying for several people to go to regular schools through general taxation. Perhaps you'd like a breakdown of that first? - How many kids from others' families must a rich person pay for first?

This isn't America, we have massive social supports in terms of welfare, schooling and healthcare, all primarily funded by a smaller and smaller group of people. The same illogical thinking will get private patients out of "public" hospitals (you are no longer a member of the taxpaying public if you can afford VHI?) and see those same public hospitals collapse with lack of funding.

moonshadow

Which o`Leary..

doc_17

alex73 wrote: »

OK... Then let them go to state schools and if they want to subsidise the Child's Education well and good.

I agree with your point.. And if we did not have to make cuts it would be fine. .. But don't you think that when having to make a choice between poorer schools and schools who's fees are in excess of 17K that it would be better to target the rich.

You can be sure that the families of the 450 kids in Clongowes wood can afford the extra fees. State could give them a tax rebate at standard rate in leau ?

That might actully cost the state more in lost taxes than they would be saving in withdrawing support.

robd

The state pays for teachers per pupil just like it does for every other school. Capitation for private schools was removed some years back.

Clongowes is so expensive because it is a boarding school. It would be circa 12-15,000 more than a non boarding private school. I think Belvedere (best comparison as it's Jesuit non boarding) is circa 4500-5000 per year.

Most private schools have scholarship schemes for those in need or those who get into financial difficulty through things such as loss of a parent. So not all students are fee paying.

doc_17

robd wrote: »

The state pays for teachers per pupil just like it does for every other school. Capitation for private schools was removed some years back.

Clongowes is so expensive because it is a boarding school. It would be circa 12-15,000 more than a non boarding private school. I think Belvedere (best comparison as it's Jesuit non boarding) is circa 4500-5000 per year.

Most private schools have scholarship schemes for those in need or those who get into financial difficulty through things such as loss of a parent. So not all students are fee paying.

Unfortunately chidren with special educational/behaviour needs are always under-represented at these schools.

These schools are already operating on an increased PTR so they have been hit harder than non-fee paying schools

juan.kerr

If we're going to start this debate again, why should the wealthy pay tax at all above a certain amount e.g. 10k per annum?

amacca

juan.kerr wrote: »

If we're going to start this debate again, why should the wealthy pay tax at all above a certain amount e.g. 10k per annum?

Or indeed why shouldn't everyone pay the same percentage of their income in taxes regardless of what they earn?

juan.kerr

amacca wrote: »

Or indeed why shouldn't everyone pay the same percentage of their income in taxes regardless of what they earn?

Maybe. I would also suggest the following:

1. There should be no exemptions for any taxes or changes e.g. for water charges, household charge.
2. Everyone should have a medical card.

washman3

pebbles21 wrote: »

Im sure Mr O Leary has paid more than his fair share back into the economy since,and if schools like this produce more Mr O Leary's then i don't see a problem tbh...

it also "produced" some of the "great" minds that put this country in its current mess. it also "produced" some of the biggest thugs in this country, which for obvious reasons i cannot and will not, name here.
dont be deluded man,Clongowes did not "produce" Michael O'Leary.!!
most of his ilk have a natural talent for innovation and would have achieved if they had just a primary education,which many actually did.
In short Clongowes is a little bubble for the elite,scandalously subsidised by the taxpayer, a practice that should be immediately ended.
Let nobody be fooled by this bluff that "the rich pay tax too" and the rich subsidise the poor. this is utter nonsense as its so out of proportion its actually laughable.

juan.kerr

washman3 wrote: »

Let nobody be fooled by this bluff that "the rich pay tax too" and the rich subsidise the poor. .

Let the 'poor' pay for the running of the country themselves for a few months and see what happens.

There'll always be begrudgers.

LizT

washman3 wrote: »

it also "produced" some of the "great" minds that put this country in its current mess. it also "produced" some of the biggest thugs in this country, which for obvious reasons i cannot and will not, name here.
dont be deluded man,Clongowes did not "produce" Michael O'Leary.!!
most of his ilk have a natural talent for innovation and would have achieved if they had just a primary education,which many actually did.
In short Clongowes is a little bubble for the elite,scandalously subsidised by the taxpayer, a practice that should be immediately ended.
Let nobody be fooled by this bluff that "the rich pay tax too" and the rich subsidise the poor. this is utter nonsense as its so out of proportion its actually laughable.

You post just stinks of reverse snobbery. " A bubble for the elite" - what are your reasons for saying this.

The rich may not directly subsidize the poor but they do contribute more the to state (financially) than say a person earning minimum wage purely because they have to pay a higher rate of tax on their earnings.

washman3

juan.kerr wrote: »

Let the 'poor' pay for the running of the country themselves for a few months and see what happens.

There'll always be begrudgers.

they have been paying for it for the last 3 years since the elite did a runner and will be paying for a generation or two more while the elite are protected by their cronies in power.
there's a programme on RTE1 at 9pm every night called THE NEWS.
you should watch it sometime, you may just learn something.!
or maybe you prefer to live in your cocoon of denial.

amacca

juan.kerr wrote: »

Maybe. I would also suggest the following:

1. There should be no exemptions for any taxes or changes e.g. for water charges, household charge.

Household charge agreed....with respect to water charges...it would not be equitable to charge a person who has paid the cost of well to be dug....a pump to be installed and exclusively pays for the ongoing maintenance of this system the same as someone who gets it piped into their house and has none of this outlay and does not have to pay maintenance on an ongoing out of their own pocket

juan.kerr wrote: »

Everyone should have a medical card.

agreed

Deleted User

My post from the AH thread. Might as well drop it here for the craic.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not really going to enter into a debate on the subject but I'll just post this.

Each and every secondary school student in the country gets an equal amount of funding towards their education. Some parents choose to supplement this government fee to send their children to a "private" school.

Despite the stereotype often thrown about, not all children in private schools have elitist parents who have mountains of money to throw around. Let's face it, a baby in creche costs a hell of a lot of more than a kid in a fee paying school. Any parents I know that have kids in private schools work very very hard to come up with the money to pay the fees.

So, what happens when the government stops subsidising private secondary schools? Well the parents who can not afford the higher fees will move their children to state schools. The state will now have to build more classrooms to accommodate this influx, thereby costing the taxpayer more money or worse, lowering the education standards further.

As I already mentioned, Primary schools receive no state funding, none. So when the government remove secondary subsidies, not only will they have the influx into secondary schools, but all the kids who are only in private primary schools in order to get them into private secondary schools (which they can no longer afford) will also be moved back into the state system, also either costing the tax payer more money or else, again, lowering the standard of education.

It's not as simple as people like to believe it is.

Spiderman68

The private education debate mirrors health. If all the young things in Clongowes etc landed in on the 'free schools' , the system would simply collapse . Great to have choice. Remember 5% of population pay 50% of our taxes. Likely same people who use private school system. If you can afford 4 Seasons you'd never stay in Holiday Inn again!

juan.kerr

amacca wrote: »

....with respect to water charges...it would not be equitable to charge a person who has paid the cost of well to be dug....

Fair point, was thinking of Dublin.

juan.kerr

washman3 wrote: »

they have been paying for it for the last 3 years since the elite did a runner and will be paying for a generation or two more while the elite are protected by their cronies in power.
there's a programme on RTE1 at 9pm every night called THE NEWS.
you should watch it sometime, you may just learn something.!
or maybe you prefer to live in your cocoon of denial.

Define 'poor'. I'm not poor but I pay plenty of tax...

Spiderman68

juan.kerr wrote: »

washman3 wrote: »

they have been paying for it for the last 3 years since the elite did a runner and will be paying for a generation or two more while the elite are protected by their cronies in power.
there's a programme on RTE1 at 9pm every night called THE NEWS.
you should watch it sometime, you may just learn something.!
or maybe you prefer to live in your cocoon of denial.

The ' elite did a runner'. Michael O Leary is the single biggest contributor to our revenue take. Such ranting does grave injustice to him and 'the 5%' who contribute so much. See how the welfare state manages if ' the contributors ' did a runner. Time to wake up and see what's really going on. Read the recent IMF report on what it says about our welfare state.

gandalf

washman3 wrote: »

they have been paying for it for the last 3 years since the elite did a runner and will be paying for a generation or two more while the elite are protected by their cronies in power.
there's a programme on RTE1 at 9pm every night called THE NEWS.
you should watch it sometime, you may just learn something.!
or maybe you prefer to live in your cocoon of denial.

Can you list who "de elite" are and where they went to school?

A lot of parents who sent their children to fee paying schools do so sacrificing what others take from granted like nights out or additional holidays. I know mine did. They did it because they wanted a good education for their children.

Do you want to remove that choice for people and make it harder for those parents who may not be mega rich but are willing to sacrifice to give their children a potential extra start in life.

byhookorbycrook

gandalf wrote: »

A lot of parents who sent their children to fee paying schools do so sacrificing what others take from granted like nights out or additional holidays. I know mine did. They did it because they wanted a good education for their children.

Do you want to remove that choice for people and make it harder for those parents who may not be mega rich but are willing to sacrifice to give their children a potential extra start in life.

But how do you think private education does this better than public?Many teachers in private schools are not fully qualified at all?

gandalf

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

But how do you think private education does this better than public?Many teachers in private schools are not fully qualified at all?

It is not guaranteed to do so, it depends on the individual. I wasn't the best academically but what I felt I got from my education was a very well rounded experience.

What I am talking about here is choice, the state guarantees a certain amount for each student. If parents want to pay over and above this then they should have that option.

Have you any stats or source on your comment about many teachers in private schools not being fully qualified?

GarIT

If you ask why private schools are state funded, you could also ask why schools run by the catholic church are state funded.

I personally believe that schools should either be state owned, state run and state funded of fully private, I don't think we should have a middle ground at all.

Techanically I am in a private school, the school is catholic church owned and run and we pay a €230 per year regestration fee. Unfortunately if we cut funding to private schools 80+% of our schools could close.

Dob74

n900guy wrote: »

The state funds it the same as it does any school in the state.

And the rich taxpayers who can afford Clongowes' fees are also likely paying for several people to go to regular schools through general taxation. Perhaps you'd like a breakdown of that first? - How many kids from others' families must a rich person pay for first?

This isn't America, we have massive social supports in terms of welfare, schooling and healthcare, all primarily funded by a smaller and smaller group of people. The same illogical thinking will get private patients out of "public" hospitals (you are no longer a member of the taxpaying public if you can afford VHI?) and see those same public hospitals collapse with lack of funding.

Why should the taxpayer pay for private schools that openly discrimate against the majority of the population who cant afford to send there children to these schools.
If a school denied entry because of race there would be up roar but not having enough dough is fine.
Lets set up schools where the well connected can send there kids so they can be well connnected, loan money to each other and not pay it back. When the system fails let the fools who do jobs productive pay for it.


And for the record America has massive social programs social security and medicare. They are much more transparent as well.
We have to listen the likes of IBEC moan about people on the dole. 188 euro a week isn't very much no matter how much spin the indo puts on it. I would rather the nice fat government cheque(funded mainly by semi state bodies) the boys in IBEC get.

washman3

juan.kerr wrote: »

Define 'poor'. I'm not poor but I pay plenty of tax...

then you are exactly like me.!!
i actually repeated the word poor from this and other threads. its being used conveniently now by those trying to defend the subsidy to these schools. read the threads.

Spiderman68

Dob74 wrote: »

n900guy wrote: »

The state funds it the same as it does any school in the state.




Why should the taxpayer pay for private schools that openly discrimate against the majority of the population who cant afford to send there children to these schools.
If a school denied entry because of race there would be up roar but not having enough dough is fine.
Lets set up schools where the well connected can send there kids so they can be well connnected, loan money to each other and not pay it back. When the system fails let the fools who do jobs productive pay for it.


And for the record America has massive social programs social security and medicare. They are much more transparent as well.
We have to listen the likes of IBEC moan about people on the dole. 188 euro a week isn't very much no matter how much spin the indo puts on it. I would rather the nice fat government cheque(funded mainly by semi state bodies) the boys in IBEC get.

I think 'discriminate' is inaccurate . Based on this argument universities discriminate against the less academically gifted, retailers discriminate against those who can't afford their wares. We fought hard for freedom, one of tenets of which is right to choose . There will always be the deluxe models. That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to same. You got to work for that.

washman3

Spiderman68 wrote: »

juan.kerr wrote: »

The ' elite did a runner'. Michael O Leary is the single biggest contributor to our revenue take. Such ranting does grave injustice to him and 'the 5%' who contribute so much. See how the welfare state manages if ' the contributors ' did a runner. Time to wake up and see what's really going on. Read the recent IMF report on what it says about our welfare state.

and i'm actually a huge admirer of MOL. find my posts on other threads if you like. but it sickens me to see him advertised as a "product" of Clongowes. probably by the same people that would be the first to criticise Ryanair and be too overwhelmed by grandeur to fly with them.
i've read the report on our welfare and of course it must be tackled,should have been done long ago,but done fairly.
for example,like grossly reducing the rent allowance. but of course this would mostly hurt the landlords which in turn would affect house prices and in turn hurt the cronies, so its well down the list of priorities.
far easier to take €9 a week from my elderly neighbours blind pension.
Time to wake up for sure,EVERYONE;)

johnnyskeleton

I didn't go to no fancy fee paying school and I done got learned good smart.

Etc

I suppose there is a big jump between those schools that aren't fee paying and those which are, and perhaps a little more choice in between would be better

robd

washman3 wrote: »

it also "produced" some of the "great" minds that put this country in its current mess. it also "produced" some of the biggest thugs in this country, which for obvious reasons i cannot and will not, name here.
dont be deluded man,Clongowes did not "produce" Michael O'Leary.!!
most of his ilk have a natural talent for innovation and would have achieved if they had just a primary education,which many actually did.
In short Clongowes is a little bubble for the elite,scandalously subsidised by the taxpayer, a practice that should be immediately ended.
Let nobody be fooled by this bluff that "the rich pay tax too" and the rich subsidise the poor. this is utter nonsense as its so out of proportion its actually laughable.

Clongowes is an extreme example given it is a boarding school. Most private schools are attended by predominately middle class kids who's parents are the biggest income tax payers by far.

If state goes ahead with this it will create huge structural problems given most of the schools will be unviable overnight. For example, it would probably cost 3/4 of South Dublin private schools to go bust and become public schools or just go bust overfilling other local public schools.

Also a lot of the schools are for minority beliefs, religious or otherwise, so pursing this would likely remove these peoples rights to an education built around their beliefs.

Given private schools only account for 5% of pupils, it's a witch hunt that won't actually deliver savings for the reasons in the above paragraph.

The investigation being pursued at them moment will likely discover the problems withdrawing support will cause.

Yahew

robd wrote: »

Clongowes is an extreme example given it is a boarding school. Most private schools are attended by predominately middle class kids who's parents are the biggest income tax payers by far.

If state goes ahead with this it will create huge structural problems given most of the schools will be unviable overnight. For example, it would probably cost 3/4 of South Dublin private schools to go bust and become public schools or just go bust overfilling other local public schools.

Also a lot of the schools are for minority beliefs, religious or otherwise, so pursing this would likely remove these peoples rights to an education built around their beliefs.

Given private schools only account for 5% of pupils, it's a witch hunt that won't actually deliver savings for the reasons in the above paragraph.

The investigation being pursued at them moment will likely discover the problems withdrawing support will cause.

What are the main "other religious belief" schools? I thought they were mostly Jesuit schools. In any case the general right on opinion is that religion should get out of schools.

Yahew

GarIT wrote: »

If you ask why private schools are state funded, you could also ask why schools run by the catholic church are state funded.

I personally believe that schools should either be state owned, state run and state funded of fully private, I don't think we should have a middle ground at all.

Techanically I am in a private school, the school is catholic church owned and run and we pay a €230 per year regestration fee. Unfortunately if we cut funding to private schools 80+% of our schools could close.

Yeah, but we know what we are talking about - the elite fee paying schools. It seems you want to wait until the schools of the plebs are taken back from the Catholic church, but not the schools of the elites. Lets nationalise the elites first.

Its not about the money, as I wrote in the AH thread, these fee paying schools tend to be able to contravene equality legislation. A school in Clonmel was found to discriminate against minority ( i.e. traveller) students, when all it did was use a practice where the having family in the school historically would benefit you.


Now take a look at the Belvedere enrolment questions:

http://www.belvederecollege.ie/Yvonne/Application%20Form%20for%20Entry%20-%20First%20Year1.pdf

Mostly about your extended family and whether they went or not.

which would discriminate against 99% of us, not 10%. The point of these schools is networking, networking amongst the top 5% is more useful than the bottom middle, an equality agency which goes after the latter but not the former, is a joke.

Yahew

lizt wrote: »

You post just stinks of reverse snobbery. " A bubble for the elite" - what are your reasons for saying this.

The rich may not directly subsidize the poor but they do contribute more the to state (financially) than say a person earning minimum wage purely because they have to pay a higher rate of tax on their earnings.

Surely a bubble for the elite explains itself. The entry requirements demand that you have more money than average, and more insider clout than average. The main policy seems to be to keep an old elite together, in the same institutions.

Zulu

washman3 wrote: »

it also "produced" some of the "great" minds that put this country in its current mess. it also "produced" some of the biggest thugs in this country, which for obvious reasons i cannot and will not, name here.

Bah, you "cannot" because you are talking through your ar$e; what a cowardly cop out.


...well let me tell you washman, I happen to know for a fact - but, for obvious reasons, I can't tell you how - that your post lacks credibility, and stinks of snobbery and prejudice.

Chuck Stone

amacca wrote: »

Or indeed why shouldn't everyone pay the same percentage of their income in taxes regardless of what they earn?

The rich would be paying a hell of a lot more if that was the case. It would involve means testing people for all goods, services, and other flat charges like fines and the TV licence.

Deleted User wrote: »

My post from the AH thread. Might as well drop it here for the craic.

[From AH]

So, what happens when the government stops subsidising private secondary schools? Well the parents who can not afford the higher fees will move their children to state schools. The state will now have to build more classrooms to accommodate this influx, thereby costing the taxpayer more money or worse, lowering the education standards further.

Not true. It's not as if these buildings and land would disappear.

The state would simply take over the school. It's already paying the bulk of the costs of the school in teachers wages and grants.

robd

Yahew wrote: »

Now take a look at the Belvedere enrolment questions:

http://www.belvederecollege.ie/Yvonne/Application%20Form%20for%20Entry%20-%20First%20Year1.pdf

Mostly about your extended family and whether they went or not.

which would discriminate against 99% of us, not 10%. The point of these schools is networking, networking amongst the top 5% is more useful than the bottom middle, an equality agency which goes after the latter but not the former, is a joke.

Enrollment policy is inline with relevant Education Act which can of course be amended by government if they consider it unfit for purpose.

Full policy is here:

http://www.belvederecollege.ie/Yvonne/Enrolment%20Policy%2014th%20June%202011%20for%20publishing[1].pdf

A brother is their primary selection. Father or extended family is secondary.
I don't see how this is any more elitist than a Ballsbridge school having a selection policy based on your elite address.

They openly discriminate against girls too, as do all boys only schools. Should that be stopped too? Personally I prefer the idea of co-education.

Other non-denominational schools actively discriminate against Catholics because they feel they are already sufficently catered for.

As said all government has to do is amend act if it is unhappy with criteria.

robd

Yahew wrote: »

What are the main "other religious belief" schools? I thought they were mostly Jesuit schools. In any case the general right on opinion is that religion should get out of schools.

I don't understand your post really. I was referring to all private schools rather than specifically Clongowes or Belvedere. Lots of private schools are Protestant is my point which is a minority religion in Ireland (Republic of). The Jesuits are involved in a relatively small number of schools in Ireland. I know of 2 boys private off hand and 1 public co-educational school that they are involved with. I'm sure there's more.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not true. It's not as if these buildings and land would disappear.

The state would simply take over the school. It's already paying the bulk of the costs of the school in teachers wages and grants.

The land and the buildings are privately owned, the government would have absolulely no rights to them whatsoever. Do you honestly think the owners of the land would just hand them over to the state?

And the students who could afford to stay? they'd just walk out and leave would they? really?

Chuck Stone

Deleted User wrote: »

The land and the buildings are privately owned, the government would have absolulely no rights to them whatsoever. Do you honestly think the owners of the land would just hand them over to the state?

Churches currently own a lot of the land schools are built on don't they? Why would it be so different?

Also they could lease the property or just buy it. They'd probably get a good deal on it in the current climate.

And the students who could afford to stay? they'd just walk out and leave would they? really?

And go where?

I'm not sure if there's such a thing as a truly private (as opposed to subsidized fee-paying) school in the state.

If there was a 100% private school there'd be very few able to afford the fees.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Churches currently own a lot of the land schools are built on don't they? Why would it be so different?

I don't understand this at all? Apologies if it's the way I'm reading it, please clarify, thanks.

Also they could lease the property or just buy it.

Ah yes, this doesn't cost any money at all. Point well made.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If there was a 100% private school there'd be very few able to afford the fees.

Exactly. That is precisely the point

frozenfrozen

ITT: People don't understand, think private schools are havens for the rich, and should be closed down.

davoxx

frozenfrozen wrote: »

ITT: People don't understand, think private schools are havens for the rich, and should be closed down.

people do understand, private schools are havens for the rich.
and they should not be closed, but just have the public funding stopped.

Yahew

robd wrote: »

I don't understand your post really. I was referring to all private schools rather than specifically Clongowes or Belvedere. Lots of private schools are Protestant is my point which is a minority religion in Ireland (Republic of). The Jesuits are involved in a relatively small number of schools in Ireland. I know of 2 boys private off hand and 1 public co-educational school that they are involved with. I'm sure there's more.

The elite schools we are talking about are Catholic. South Dublin. Most Irish schools are "private", as in the Churches own the land. We are talking about elite fee paying schools here, not the general free ones. 80% are private.

As for Protestant schools, the general liberal consensus is that all schools funded by the State should be non-sectarian. This should also apply to Jesuit schools for the elite, and furthermore they should be forced to ease their entry requirements even if private.

Yahew

robd wrote: »

Enrollment policy is inline with relevant Education Act which can of course be amended by government if they consider it unfit for purpose.

Full policy is here:

http://www.belvederecollege.ie/Yvonne/Enrolment%20Policy%2014th%20June%202011%20for%20publishing[1].pdf

A brother is their primary selection. Father or extended family is secondary.
I don't see how this is any more elitist than a Ballsbridge school having a selection policy based on your elite address.

They openly discriminate against girls too, as do all boys only schools. Should that be stopped too? Personally I prefer the idea of co-education.

Other non-denominational schools actively discriminate against Catholics because they feel they are already sufficently catered for.

As said all government has to do is amend act if it is unhappy with criteria.

Did you read my first link?

The law as I pointed out, was applied to the Clonmel school. The school was found guilty by the Equality agency of discrimination against a traveller as he didn't have brothers, or family in the school ( this despite the fact that this school had taken travellers before, doesn't charge fees, and applied the same criteria - a bias based on previous family members being, or having gone there - to non traveller applicants).

Effectively this means the lower middle classes can't discriminate on family history and the upper middle class can. But the latter has more effect on how real power and privilege are propagated in society. The law is already there, the equality act is not used against real elites.

As for the other points.

The Ballsbridge example is "discriminatory" on wealth, but not family status. If rich travellers were banned from a pub they would still be discriminated against and that would be a case for the equality agency, even if the rich traveller could rent a hotel pub unavailable to poor travellers. Equality acts are not about money, but discrimination based on birth. So the Belvedere rules stop new classes running the country, as wealth alone is not good enough. Wealth can get you the house in Ballsbridge, and the school, but family background gets you into Belevedere.


All schools should be dual-sex and inter-demoninational.

robd

Yahew wrote: »

The elite schools we are talking about are Catholic. South Dublin. Most Irish schools are "private", as in the Churches own the land. We are talking about elite fee paying schools here, not the general free ones. 80% are private.

I'm finding it hard to make sense of what you're saying. Are you saying 80% of South Dublin schools are private? I would find that hard to believe. The concentration of fee paying schools as a total is certainly in South Dublin.

Yahew wrote: »

As for Protestant schools, the general liberal consensus is that all schools funded by the State should be non-sectarian. This should also apply to Jesuit schools for the elite, and furthermore they should be forced to ease their entry requirements even if private.

I'd prefer if government (or Ruairi Quinn to be specific) tackled this problem. I agree that all funded schools should be non-denominational. AFAIK though, the constitution protects the rights to a religious education.

Chuck Stone

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand this at all? Apologies if it's the way I'm reading it, please clarify, thanks.

You're making the point that if the state stopped subsidizing fee-paying schools the state schools would be overwhelmed. I'm saying that is not true because the bulk of the cost of fee-paying schools is picked up by the state anyway (I think it's ~80%. That's ~80% of the cost year after year. So all the state would have to do is make up the other ~20% of the annual costs and buy or lease the school.

Exactly. That is precisely the point

We're understanding the point differently. Currently fee paying schools are subsidized by the state. They would not be able to survive in their current numbers if they were not.

Yahew

robd wrote: »

I'm finding it hard to make sense of what you're saying. Are you saying 80% of South Dublin schools are private? I would find that hard to believe. The concentration of fee paying schools as a total is certainly in South Dublin.

About 80% of all schools are privately owned by Churches, or the land is.
Property on the land may be owned by the State. The teachers are funded by the State in all cases.

The argument that there should be different laws for fee paying schools because their land are not owned by the State is therefore spurious.

robd

Yahew wrote: »

Did you read my first link?

The law as I pointed out, was applied to the Clonmel school. The school was found guilty by the Equality agency of discrimination against a traveller as he didn't have brothers, or family in the school ( this despite the fact that this school had taken travellers before, doesn't charge fees, and applied the same criteria - a bias based on previous family members being, or having gone there - to non traveller applicants).

I hadn't read the link but I went back and read it. Long doc.

That's not what the law found. In fact it found the opposite. The equality officer held it was indirectly discriminatory but on appeal to the court the court found that while discriminatory, it was justified.

The relevant act allows discrimination in various ways provided it is published in advance in the admission policies of the school.

This note examines the recent equality officer and Circuit Court decisions in CBS High School Clonmel v Stokes which concerned whether the rules for admission to the school – in particular a rule giving priority to children whose parents had attended the school - were compatible with the Equal Status Acts 2000-2008. The equality officer held that the rule was indirectly discriminatory and in breach of the Act.2. However, on appeal the Court held that while the rule had a disproportionate impact on Travellers, it was objectively justified

Yahew

robd wrote: »

I hadn't read the link but I went back and read it. Long doc.

That's not what the law found. In fact it found the opposite. The equality officer held it was indirectly discriminatory but on appeal to the court the court found that while discriminatory, it was justified.

The relevant act allows discrimination in various ways provided it is published in advance in the admission policies of the school.

However it was found discriminatory by the Equality Agency, which runs its own parallel legal system. In it's court the school was found guilty. I have continually mentioned the Equality Agency, not the rest of the court system.


Equality agency judgements can be appealed to proper courts, but until recently most people didn't do that.