Private School Funding

amen

Forget about the schools for a minute.

Lets take the private hospitals. Does the state pay for the Nurse, Doctors etc salary in private hospitals ?

No they don't so why should schools be different.

If you want to go to a private school then go a private school and pay the fees.

There will be a very small/no drop off in those attending if the Fees are increased.

Paying teacher salaries in private schools is just the same as bailing out banks. Everyone wants to be a capitalist but when it doesn't work they want the state to intervene.

TwoTokeTommy

Internet Hero wrote: »

so i guess can we just discount every this guy says from here on now? hes clearly got no idea what the parents and children who go to privates schools are really like and has bought into jealosy based socialist creep show ideas. my neighbour went to private, his parents were less well off than mine but the sacrificed to get him there because they honestly believed it was a better service for there childs education, something they deemed to be important. from what ive heard and seen from the guy they were right on that. your opinion here is skewed by jealous and childish emotions. for your point to make any sense you have to shed your demonised rubbish view of what private schools are acutally like and try some objectivity, possibly for the first time in your life. such rubbish on this site sometimes.

Well done, pounce on an exaggerated point i made for humor and ignore the context it was said in. You completely ignored little Fintan! Clearly you aren't thinking of the children. :pac:

You go on to repeat the same nonsense you've been at for the last few pages, labeling me as jealous and creepy (fcukin lol lol lol) and back up your points with stories from the life of hero.

Wow, there's rubbish on this mate alright mate. It'll greatly improve when you stop posting.

ted1

amen wrote: »

Forget about the schools for a minute.

Lets take the private hospitals. Does the state pay for the Nurse, Doctors etc salary in private hospitals ?

No they don't so why should schools be different.

If you want to go to a private school then go a private school and pay the fees.

There will be a very small/no drop off in those attending if the Fees are increased.

Paying teacher salaries in private schools is just the same as bailing out banks. Everyone wants to be a capitalist but when it doesn't work they want the state to intervene.

There semi private schools not private. Private schools would be allowed to use there own cricculumn.

theholyghost

A nice side effect of doing this in the interests of equality will be that a lot of the very ordinary people who manage to go to fee paying schools will be squeezed out and a private education will really become the preserve of the elite.

You will then see a much bigger gap between those few who go to private schools and those who revert to a now more overburdend public system.*


*(Disclaimier: I went to public school and I don't have kids.)

griffdaddy

amen wrote: »

Forget about the schools for a minute.

Good plan.

TwoTokeTommy

ted1 wrote: »

so basically it's down to begrudgery.....

the parent of alot of the kids in private school are in fact funding the education of there own kids and those in publice schools who's parents don't work or on low income and contribute little to the economy.

Hello, Bertie is it?!

Seriously, look at your own twisted view of the world and pull the silver spoon out of your hole while you're at it.

I'm a begrudger. Some howl! :pac:

amen

A nice side effect of doing this in the interests of equality will be that a lot of the very ordinary people who manage to go to fee paying schools will be squeezed out and a private education will really become the preserve of the elite

But why are these people going to Private schools? What does the private school offer that a public school does not ?

Private schools would be allowed to use there own cricculumn

Since when ? I though all schools have to teach to a standard as specified by the Dept of Education including private schools.

TwoTokeTommy

theholyghost wrote: »

A nice side effect of doing this in the interests of equality will be that a lot of the very ordinary people who manage to go to fee paying schools will be squeezed out and a private education will really become the preserve of the elite.

You will then see a much bigger gap between those few who go to private schools and those who revert to a now more overburdend public system.*


*(Disclaimier: I went to public school and I don't have kids.)

That was noted. However does it only become a problem when the middle class lose out? I mean, elitism is fine otherwise...??

Undercover Elephant

amen wrote: »

Lets take the private hospitals. Does the state pay for the Nurse, Doctors etc salary in private hospitals ?

If you have private health insurance, you're still entitled to use the public system. And people frequently do.

To make your analogy work, you would have to ban anyone who has private health insurance from using the public system. Some people do actually advocate this, but I don't think anyone does so on economic grounds.

Blisterman

I went to a private school, but really I don't think they're a good thing for society. Schools are such a formative experience in a person's life, I think we'd have a much better and more open minded society if people grew up mixing together rather than being segregated by sex, religion or socio-economic background.

Boombastic

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

If you have private health insurance, you're still entitled to use the public system. And people frequently do.

To make your analogy work, you would have to ban anyone who has private health insurance from using the public system. Some people do actually advocate this, but I don't think anyone does so on economic grounds.

Nobody's banned from going to public school

thesimpsons

amen wrote: »

But why are these people going to Private schools? What does the private school offer that a public school does not ?
[/QUOTE

one of the reasons people send their kids to private schools is that the vast majority of public schools in Ireland are under the catholic church. I know plenty of CoI parents whose only option for their kids education is either catholic ethos public school or CoI ethos private school. If govt sees fit to permit funding for teachers in one religion, then I see no problem in govt funding teaching staff for another religion. By preference of course, there would be no religion in any public schools.

Undercover Elephant

theholyghost wrote: »

A nice side effect of doing this in the interests of equality will be that a lot of the very ordinary people who manage to go to fee paying schools will be squeezed out and a private education will really become the preserve of the elite.

You will then see a much bigger gap between those few who go to private schools and those who revert to a now more overburdend public system.

I would add that this is not speculation - you just have to look at how the English messed up their education system.

First they got rid of grammar schools, then they cut back the assisted places scheme. This was not some left wing plot, it was enthusiastically supported (early on at least) by Margaret Thatcher. This was supposed to raise the standard of education and available facilities for everyone.

Did it work? Nope. Oxbridge takes on a smaller percentage of state school students than it did in the 1960s. The grammar schools used to produce prime ministers whose parents were sailors, chemists, grocers or circus performers. Now they're all expensively educated toffs.

I'm not suggesting that the sky will fall if part-funding to private schools is cut off, but I'd warn those of a lefty bent that it might have unintended consequences. It'll feel nice, though.

Undercover Elephant

Boombastic wrote: »

Nobody's banned from going to public school

But in your brave new world, if they go to a private school, they are effectively banned from using public resources, since you generally only go to one school at a time.

Boombastic

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

But in your brave new world, if they go to a private school, they are effectively banned from using public resources, since you generally only go to one school at a time.

No, if they go to private school, they are choosing to opt out of the public system

Undercover Elephant

Boombastic wrote: »

No, if they go to private school, they are choosing to opt out of the public system

Only because you are defining the public system that way.

People who choose the private system at the moment are choosing one which is part funded by them and part funded by the state. It's ridiculous to pretend that they have "chosen to opt out" and denying funding on that basis. (There may be other arguments for denying funding, of course.)

Zab

TwoTokeTommy wrote: »

That was noted. However does it only become a problem when the middle class lose out? I mean, elitism is fine otherwise...??

Well, I haven't seen you give a single reason why people with kids in private education shouldn't get a contribution from the state towards their education. I also haven't seen you acknowledge that the current contribution per student is less in private schools than in public, or the pretty obvious fact that these parents on average are going to have paid more tax in the first place than the parents of those in public school (please take careful note of the word "average"). You've given no acknowledgement of the very fair method we currently have where those in private school get a reduced contribution on the agreement that they make up the rest of it themselves.

I haven't seen you give an estimate for how many would leave private schools for public schools if the fees went up by €4k per year, but judging by your comments you're way way underestimating the number. This will mean close to doubling the fees of most schools.

Your system would essentially made all the semi-private schools into fully private schools like the Institute of Education. This would mean they would no longer have to follow the national curriculum and would also be free to pay their teachers whatever they wish. Your earlier suggestion that the governement could somehow pull the rug out from under the schools and also keep the wage cap is ridiculous.

Snickers Man

TwoTokeTommy wrote: »

The key word above being choice. They can choose to send the kids to public school, or choose to opt out of the system and pay full whack.

You can have your choices and pay for it or else STFU.

So you're happy with the argument: "I am happy to pay 'the full cost' of educating my own children but then I don't see why I should pay anything at all towards educating somebody else's?"

Which means, at the very least, that in a system as envisaged by you, somebody who opts out of sending their kids to state funded schools can write off the cost of sending their kids to fee paying schools against tax.

Please DON'T follow your erstwhile advice to STFU. I really want to know what you think of this rather obvious corollary.

theholyghost

TwoTokeTommy wrote: »

However does it only become a problem when the middle class lose out? I mean, elitism is fine otherwise...??

That's a fair point but changing the system won't actually make the public schools any better.

Plenty of people go to private schools who aren't particularly well off or priviledged, so, I don't see the relevance of terms like "middle class". In many cases you're talking about fairly ordinary kids who's parents prioritise their resources to put extra into their education. It's not all particularly well to do people with money to burn. Some "middle class" parents don't bother either.

It is a question of taking something which is potentialy do-able for a certain number of people and making it something which is only open to a far smaller, much more priviledged group.

In the end it is always the poorer people who end up suffering the most. It will be the poorer people on the edge who could just about afford to send their kids to a particular school who will now be unable to. The people who could always afford it, will still be able to afford it...

Rasheed

griffdaddy wrote: »

I really don't think you're getting the point that children from private schools have to be educated either privately or publicly. That 100 million will go straight into public schools to pay for children anyway. The state isn't paying for the infrastructure or anything not related to teachers in private schools. If there were no private schools, all the children who currently attend them would have to be taught in public schools and the state would have to fund everything else on top of teacher's wages. Private schools are saving the state money by subsidising everything except teacher's wages.

Ah come on, of course I know every child has to be educated. I just don't understand why should the government should subsidise those ' special' children that mammy and daddy can afford extra money on education.

If a parent so wishes their child to be in smaller classes and whatever other little perks that go with private education , off with them.

They should not however, expect that the state to cushion the price. I really don't think it's fair to encourage segregation.

theholyghost

Rasheed wrote: »

Ah come on, of course I know every child has to be educated. I just don't understand why should the government should subsidise those ' special' children that mammy and daddy can afford extra money on education.

Because the point is they are not being subsidised. The state is providing the same basic per child payment for every child regardless of what school they go to and then the rest is up to the parent.

I think we have established that this system works out cheaper for the state than actually running public school does?

And as to your comment about mammy and daddy being able to "afford extra money on education", does that mean if your kid in a public school is struggling at maths you should not be allowed to get him grinds or help without being put out of the public system?

BenEadir

TwoTokeTommy wrote: »

The key word above being choice. They can choose to send the kids to public school, or choose to opt out of the system and pay full whack.

You can have your choices and pay for it or else STFU.

If you really believe in your "choice" argument you would also give parents who are paying tax back the relevant amount of their tax which sending their kids to public schools would equate to and let them use that to part fund their chosen private school. If choice really is the operative word why not let parents choose which school their tax money goes to?

Did you learn STFU in a private or public school?? Insightful.

Ben

TwoTokeTommy

Zab wrote: »

Well, I haven't seen you give a single reason why people with kids in private education shouldn't get a contribution from the state towards their education.

Fairly sure I did: Choice.
Choice being a key argument for allowing any privatization of public services.

I also haven't seen you acknowledge that the current contribution per student is less in private schools than in public, or the pretty obvious fact that these parents on average are going to have paid more tax in the first place than the parents of those in public school (please take careful note of the word "average").

Where are your figures? Cost to state is what i'm talking about.

Average contribution per student probably is lower, overall cost is higher.

How does the tax/state system supposed to work? To get back out as much as possible of what you paid in of course!

You've given no acknowledgement of the very fair method we currently have where those in private school get a reduced contribution on the agreement that they make up the rest of it themselves.

Fairness is subjective. Two people both work very hard for 40 hrs per week each, but one earns ten times what the other earns. Issue starts there really, depends where you're coming from when you talk about fairness.

I haven't seen you give an estimate for how many would leave private schools for public schools if the fees went up by €4k per year, but judging by your comments you're way way underestimating the number. This will mean close to doubling the fees of most schools.

Your system would essentially made all the semi-private schools into fully private schools like the Institute of Education. This would mean they would no longer have to follow the national curriculum and would also be free to pay their teachers whatever they wish. Your earlier suggestion that the governement could somehow pull the rug out from under the schools and also keep the wage cap is ridiculous.

€4k per year per student was a figure I mentioned, as an increase, taken from the workings of another poster. 3,000 was an estimate (10% of total private students) (s)he used as possibly moving private to public. I agree that probably is far too low an estimate. The real problem however would be logistics rather than cost.

Second para, are you quoting law or just supposing? Laws can be changed afaik. Even the constitution.

griffdaddy

Rasheed wrote: »

Ah come on, of course I know every child has to be educated. I just don't understand why should the government should subsidise those ' special' children that mammy and daddy can afford extra money on education.

If a parent so wishes their child to be in smaller classes and whatever other little perks that go with private education , off with them.

They should not however, expect that the state to cushion the price. I really don't think it's fair to encourage segregation.

You can afford a car, get off the (state subsidised) bus.
You can afford private treatment, get out of the hospital.
You can afford to maintain the footpaths, stop expecting the council to do it.

Do you see where this is going?

the_syco

Stark wrote: »

The reason you're no better educated is because private schools can't poach the best teachers by offering higher wages like they do in places like the States.

Also, some teachers may not want to teach in the private schools, where little Timmy gets away with anything as his parents paid thousands to the school at the start of the year...

TwoTokeTommy wrote: »

Ok, but that's religious b/s which shouldn't be allowed continue anyway.

Everyone is shouting that private schools should be shut down, but no-one seems to realize that most primary schools are not altogether that "public" as they're either run by church bodies, or have church bodies on their boards. Thus continue preferential treatment towards catholics. IMO, if it's not state ran, it's not entirely public.

Zamboni wrote: »

The state should fund only public schools. The state should not fund companies or religious bodies.

Just how many primary/post-primary schools are "Educate Together" schools? If we did this, the rest would just go on strike, and the government would just back down.

On the other hand, I'd be all for an ultimatum for the religious bodies to GTFO of any involvement in the school, so that the schools would actually become religion free, or all money for the school (including wages) gets cut.

griffdaddy wrote: »

That 100 million will go straight into public schools to pay for children anyway.

IMO, that 100 million won't go anywhere near the education budget, as it will be a 100 million "saved".

=-=

How many private schools are not boarding schools? Boarding schools still allow people to not stay, but a majority of the kids will board there. These may be the children of parents who both work long hours, and find that the boarding school would benefit them more than an empty house.

griffdaddy

the_syco wrote: »

IMO, that 100 million won't go anywhere near the education budget, as it will be a 100 million "saved".

I agree entirely. The really depressing thing is that it probably wouldn't even go anywhere near the public education system.

TwoTokeTommy

BenThere wrote: »

If you really believe in your "choice" argument you would also give parents who are paying tax back the relevant amount of their tax which sending their kids to public schools would equate to and let them use that to part fund their chosen private school. If choice really is the operative word why not let parents choose which school their tax money goes to?

Did you learn STFU in a private or public school?? Insightful.

Ben

No, I wouldn't give it back to them, sorry. Reasons already provided.

Can't remember where exactly I learned it, probably not school. What was your point there?

ps - the STFU was in direct reponse to this:
"If they have the money then they can spend it anyway that they want."

Basically i took that as if i have money i can do whatever i want, which might not have been correct but that's how I read it at the time.

Rasheed

theholyghost wrote: »

Because the point is they are not being subsidised. The state is providing the same basic per child payment for every child regardless of what school they go to and then the rest is up to the parent.

I think we have established that this system works out cheaper for the state than actually running public school does?

And as to your comment about mammy and daddy being able to "afford extra money on education", does that mean if your kid in a public school is struggling at maths you should not be allowed to get him grinds or help without being put out of the public system?

griffdaddy wrote: »

You can afford a car, get off the (state subsidised) bus.
You can afford private treatment, get out of the hospital.
You can afford to maintain the footpaths, stop expecting the council to do it.

Do you see where this is going?

Ah no, I'm getting your points but the budget for education has to be cut. The fact that there is nearly a 100 million euro subvention being paid to fee paying schools has to be looked at as well as all other areas.

Correct me if I'm wrong but one of the main benefits of private education are smaller class sizes, therefore more teachers. So if this subvention is merely paying teachers salaries, then why should a privately run school have lower class numbers?

What makes those children's education paramount to all others?

Zab

TwoTokeTommy wrote: »

Fairly sure I did: Choice.
Choice being a key argument for allowing any privatization of public services.

Choice and fairness are not the same thing, so you still haven't answered.

Where are your figures? Cost to state is what i'm talking about.

Average contribution per student probably is lower, overall cost is higher.

I thought we were in agreement that the state paid for the bulk of the salaries of most of the teachers in private schools, but not for the running of the school as they would in a public school. How do you figure that it could possibly *not* be less of a cost to the state per student.

wrt the bolded part, I don't know what you're trying to say there.

How does the tax/state system supposed to work? To get back out as much as possible of what you paid in of course!

You want them to get back nothing instead of the same as everybody else, and you're saying it's fair because of "choice".

Fairness is subjective. Two people both work very hard for 40 hrs per week each, but one earns ten times what the other earns. Issue starts there really, depends where you're coming from when you talk about fairness.

Ah, and finally we come to it. We already have progressive taxation in this country. I fully support this and in fact would lean towards making it even more progressive. I also support more state assistance going towards low or no-income families than to wealthier families ... which is exactly the current system with the semi-private schools.

The real problem however would be logistics rather than cost.

Second para, are you quoting law or just supposing? Laws can be changed afaik. Even the constitution.

Logistics and costs intermingle, you can usually overcome one using the other.

Regarding the law, I was stating how things are. The Institute is not funded by the state, does not have restrictions on what they pay their teachers and is not obliged to follow the state curriculum. You're in la la land if you think that the government is going to manage to cap the salary in a fully private school without being dragged through the courts and losing. I don't even see how this concept manages to fit into your view of how the school system should work.

CruelCoin

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/quinn-reviews-cash-to-feepaying-schools-3252444.html



Should the state be paying the salaries of teachers in fee paying schools at all? If they are private schools should they not be solely privately funded?

or

By people part funding their childrens education they are infact saving the tax payer some of the cost in the long run?

Every child has a right to a publicly provided primary and secondary education.
Every childs parents also have the right to supplement that basic education level by sending their kids to private schools.

u jelly?