€1.5 billion school-building programme announced

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Well, 5 out of 7 primary schools due to open in september will be ET:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0306/schools.html

We need a lot more, but it's a start...?

LeinsterDub

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It makes sense to build now when it's cheaper

mikemac1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Makes sense to start big infrastructure projects during lean times

The contractors will give better value in their quotes so money can be saved and some employment can be created now when it's needed most

Of course money is supposed to held back during boom times to pay for these projects

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nijmegen

School building is required, otherwise we won't have the physical space to put 80,000 new kids into the system.

However there remains huge remedial work that needs doing with our existing school infrastructure. An obvious area is the €50,000+ that a prefab costs to rent each year, and the massive number we have in the system.

The other is the amount of old, unsuitable and energy inefficient schools. And the third part is schools that need repair work.

Huge amounts of this sort of work is paid for by parents through fundraising. I know of a school that had a partial roof collapse (at night, during a storm, thankfully); and the parents had to immediately pay up to get it fixed or else their kids would be shoved in on top of one another in what classrooms were left whilst the department dithered.

The fact that schools don't get enough funding to turn the lights on, just a blind grant and a 'good luck' from government is also shoddy.

FreudianSlippers

I welcome infrastructure projects, but this is too little too late.

Dirk Gently

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabears a socialist :eek:

to late for me bullying does leave mental scares

Gurgle

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You need a crystal ball to know a boom won't last for ever and a recession has to happen sooner or later?

Tora Bora

We are building again = "we have turned the corner"!
This country is on it's way back. The naysayers and doubters, will all eat humble pie.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bijapos

I wonder how much of a contract and land scramble there will be for these?

How many will be built where they are really needed and not just where its helpful for a local TD?

How many will be built in the best spot and not just the one where the person selling the land happens to be well acquainted with someone influential?

How many will be built to proper standards, with proper insulation, proper use of light and open spaces, proper use of long term low cost heating and lighting with indigenous solutions. (Or how many will get inefficient oil fired heating that will be almost impossible to maintain in the future).

How many will be built on the basis of looking at examples of good school architecture abroad and learning from where they went wrong and from what they did right?

How many will be built with the intention that kids should walk or cycle to school where possible and not just be driven there by car?

It will be interesting to see if the present government have learnt anything from the mistakes of throwing up crap buildings during the boom. How they go about this will partially influence how I vote in 2014.

Tora Bora wrote: »

We are building again = "we have turned the corner"!
This country is on it's way back. The naysayers and doubters, will all eat humble pie.

No we haven't, the money for this is being borrowed, so long as thats the case we are in no state to celebrate.

FreudianSlippers

bijapos wrote: »

No we haven't, the money for this is being borrowed, so long as thats the case we are in no state to celebrate.

Do you think there was or will be a time where we didn't borrow this money?

thebman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think it was so they could spend most of the budget on wages.

Look at amount of the education budget spent on renting buildings and you'll probably find the real answer.

oppenheimer1

thebman wrote: »

I don't think it was so they could spend most of the budget on wages.

Look at amount of the education budget spent on renting buildings and you'll probably find the real answer.

Huh? The vast vast majority of the education budget is spent on wages. I would hazard a guess that less than 10% is capital spend.

I don't know why people are saying that the school building programme is to little too late though. The children that this programme is to house weren't born - there was also a baby boom during the economic boom.

byhookorbycrook

Our school spent almost 25 years in prefabs,without a single fixed building.When we finally got our building, we were short 4 rooms and all of the prefabs were scrapped.Typical of the DES.

Many of the schools "announced" have already been announced, schools that were supposed to be starting have now been put on hold. Back to the days where the local t.d decided who got what.

#15

Even taking salary increases into account, Irish education was still underfunded in comparison to the OECD average throughout the last decade.

The 'education funding debate' is just the wooden horse for slashing public salaries.

Minimising public expenditure is a legitimate goal to hold and public salaries should not be beyond scrutiny. And that's fine.

But be honest about it - don't dress it up as concern about the lack of investment in education. Otherwise you would have been calling for Ireland to meet the OECD average for education investment all through the last decade.

But we didn't hear or see too many calling for that - at least not from some of the more ''concerned'' members on these boards. It's amazing how the annual reports from the OECD about underinvestment pass almost without a splutter of indignation, but a teacher having the gall to drive a good car means it's time to whip out the pitchforks. There's plenty of room for discussion without resorting to that toxic, emotional shíte.

The school building programme is good news, but nothing out of the ordinary. More students will be entering the system in the near future, and additional capacity is required. It's a standard move by the govt, with a bit of spin portraying it as an unexpected investment.

Ddad

I'll believe it when I see it. Five schools to be built or extended in my area in one year. Some hope. The site identified for one of the schools is in a village 1.5 miles from the main town and is in an area with very poor infrastructure with no footpaths. Not much hope of kids walking to school there. There isn't a hope that capital spending on this scale will be anything other than the ususal ****e we build as schools which will suffer from maintenance and capacity issues in no time.

Sleepy

Got a newsletter from Sean Haughey shortly before the last election bragging about helping allocate IIRC 200k to provide prefabs for a local school. I mailed him asking why on earth 200k was being spent on a couple of prefabs when in the current climate 200k should cover the cost of building a proper extension to the school.

Something tells me the local prefab rental company was a big donor to Fianna Fail.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gurgle

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

4 specific claims
4 links to evidence please

Otherwise, I'll accept an admission that you're making this stuff up.

Gurgle

Sleepy wrote: »

Something tells me the local prefab rental company was a big donor to Fianna Fail.

This is something I've never understood.

These things need all the same work as a permanent structure, i.e. foundations, toilets, heating, plumbing, electrical.
They don't cost significantly less to install than building out of blocks.
With no insulation they cost a lot more to heat.

Why pre-fabs? Who decided they were a good idea?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Geuze

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/11/43619343.pdf

Highlights from Education At Glance, OECD.

Pegasusbridge

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are you complaining about the use of 2007 figures for investment in education while at the same time using 2007 wages figures to make a claim about teacher wages?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

#15

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No. I'm referring to quite a few different reports and the dates range from the late 1990s to the end of the Celtic Tiger era. Which makes a lot of your counter points redundant. I've never been fixated with the 2007 report. You are not going to link me to the teacher unions either, because I have little time for them and couldn't care less what position they hold.

It is amazing how you warn of the dangers of placing too much stock on one OECD report though, while simultaneously having no problem using another OECD report (PISA) as absolute proof of academic performance.

Scofflaw

Can we stay on topic please? This thread is not about salaries, but about the building programme.

moderately,
Scofflaw