Private School Funding

Milk & Honey

kodoherty93 wrote: »

I don't know what year you live but it isn't 2012. Stand outside any private city centre school and it's children as young 11 taking the bus to school from the other side of the city.

Out of my year of 100 there was a minimum of 75 north siders. Private schools aren't that exclusive if 15% of students go to them. Which a majority would be in Dublin.

€100 million is a drop in the ocean compared to the millions spent on social welfare because people are poorly educated. Eg some inner city schools don't offer higher levels maths at junior cert

I don't know where you go to school but maths and geography don't appear to be taught. The city centre is no South Dublin. If there is a map in your school you will see there is a large area of Dublin, South of St. Stephens green.
Look at the prospectus for Gonzaga, the applicant for a place must live South of the River Liffey.
You have said that most private schools have 50 to 75 in a class year so how come you are in a school with 100 in your class year?
Children should walk or cycle to school, not travel in buses, making a racket and crowding out people trying to get to work.

jmayo

Zab wrote: »

Your taxes aren't being used for shít, their taxes are.

Do I note an air of condescension ?
It would be par for the course I guess, if it is coming from those who come from the privately educated section of our society.

kodoherty93 wrote: »

Having gone to a private school my understanding is that the school receives no funding for upkeep. Like our school was nice when built but some of the room havent been painted in 10 years meaning there was 10 years of dicks on the walls.

Ah poor pet your classroom walls hadn't been painted in 10 years.
Maybe you should check out some schools which have been operating out of portacabins ?

kodoherty93 wrote: »

Often student who go to private schools are obviously from higher income families meaning they pay more taxes( Half of income earners in Ireland pay no tax). If this was in America part of there income tax would go to the local district. (that's why in the movies Beverly hills high school is 10 times better than east Compton high even though they're in the same city)

In my class of 25 all of the students had both parents working so they could send their children to a private school. I heard from a past pupil one students mother worked 3 jobs to send her child to a public school to keep him out of trouble.

Yeah private school students never get into trouble such as killing each other, especially when out as a group. :rolleyes:

kodoherty93 wrote: »

In the words of Ja'ime from summer heights high "some people believe private schools produce better citizens, I believe they produce better quality citizens"

IMHO just because someone sounds better and is employed in a job while they rob you blind doesn't make them that much better than the scumbag who can't utter a legible sentence while they hold you at knife point.

I find it condescending that people believe only those who attend private education establishments somehow have the monopoly on quality.

I believe if some of those who attended private schools attended a hedge school they would still end up being good citizens because how you turn out has a lot to do with upbringing and background.
Likewise with other kids of a far different background and moral upbringing.

CruelCoin

jmayo wrote: »

I believe if some of those who attended private schools attended a hedge school they would still end up being good citizens because how you turn out has a lot to do with upbringing and background.
Likewise with other kids of a far different background and moral upbringing.

Is it such a bad thing for parents to pay extra to ensure a higher class of people for their kids to go to school with?

I want my kids to go to college, be well behaved, well enunciated, have general respect for others and aspire to a well paid professional career.
Based on the above i will pay extra for my kids to attend private school, away from the hordes of tinkers who will never make it past the leaving cert and aspirations of being a brickie.

Monkey see, monkey do has a huge influence on kids in their formative years. I would want the best for my children, and part of that is ensuring good surroundings for them to learn and socialise in.

You can call me elitist, but i'll do what i need to for the sake of my kids.

Capt'n Midnight

Stark wrote: »

In many cases because the public schools in their area gave preferential enrollment to Catholic children.

Public Schools ?

The state doesn't provide any primary or secondary schools - please correct me if I'm wrong. (*shudders at the old young offenders institutes*)

Private groups do (for their own reasons) and then claim back costs.

Until comparatively recently these private groups were almost exclusively religious or political groups.

Islander13

Milk & Honey wrote: »

So the state should subsidise private education to the tune of €100m just because some Northsiders don't want their children going to school with their neighbours?
At least one Southside school refuses to admit Northsiders. I am not sure that there are many Northsiders at school in the South.
Nowadays parents don't send their children to school. They bring them. In great big 4 x 4s, clogging up the roads.

This one southside school refuses to admit northsiders line is not an issue though everyone seems to be bigging it up as some sort of elitism point

The school is Gonzaga, and the only reason its there is because Belvedere provides Jesuit education in the city centre and given its size relative to Gonzaga (150 per year versus 50ish) its no surprise that they try to divert northside students there

dizzywizlw

CruelCoin wrote: »

Is it such a bad thing for parents to pay extra to ensure a higher class of people for their kids to go to school with?

I want my kids to go to college, be well behaved, well enunciated, have general respect for others and aspire to a well paid professional career.
Based on the above i will pay extra for my kids to attend private school, away from the hordes of tinkers who will never make it past the leaving cert and aspirations of being a brickie.

Monkey see, monkey do has a huge influence on kids in their formative years. I would want the best for my children, and part of that is ensuring good surroundings for them to learn and socialise in.

You can call me elitist, but i'll do what i need to for the sake of my kids.

Yes but the point trying to me made is that YOU should be solely responsible for the cost of this to compensate for your lack of ability to raise children to professional careers inside the current system (speaking as a Postgraduate educated professional that has received numerous commendations for my way in dealing with customers and fellow employees)

Went to local schools with never less than 35 pupils in my class.


Apparently my parents could do it working 60+ hour work weeks but I'm sure you have an amazing excuse to outsource your parental responsibilities...

jmayo

CruelCoin wrote: »

Is it such a bad thing for parents to pay extra to ensure a higher class of people for their kids to go to school with?

So are you saying that anyone that goes to public schools are of a lower class ?

CruelCoin wrote: »

I want my kids to go to college, be well behaved, well enunciated, have general respect for others and aspire to a well paid professional career.

So do I.
I think most parents do.
Although I question what is your definition of a professional career.
To me most people in the old professions i.e. doctors, bankers, dentists, legal professionals are leeching sh**s.
I don't particularly want my kids to be one of those and I don't want my kids to associate with snobs either.

CruelCoin wrote: »

Based on the above i will pay extra for my kids to attend private school, away from the hordes of tinkers who will never make it past the leaving cert and aspirations of being a brickie.

Excuse me, I attended a public school and believe it or not I managed to get as far as a masters degree in an engineering discipline.
And from memory the vast majority of those I attended college with did not come from private school background.
Of course I did not go to UCD or Trinity, so I guess you would also frown on that. :rolleyes:
Fecking hell we must all have been tinkers.

Are you kids so vulmerable or is the local public school so bad that all the students are destined to scrape by the leaving cert or become brickies ?

CruelCoin wrote: »

Monkey see, monkey do has a huge influence on kids in their formative years. I would want the best for my children, and part of that is ensuring good surroundings for them to learn and socialise in.

You can call me elitist, but i'll do what i need to for the sake of my kids.

Ehh I think you do have an elitist attitude and if your kids are going to be the same as you then I hope to hell my kids never bring one of them home.
Of course your precious ones would probably not be caught dead with someone of a lower class. :rolleyes:

CruelCoin

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Yes but the point trying to me made is that YOU should be solely responsible for the cost of this to compensate for your lack of ability to raise children to professional careers inside the current system (speaking as a Postgraduate educated professional that has received numerous commendations for my way in dealing with customers and fellow employees)

Went to local schools with never less than 35 pupils in my class.


Apparently my parents could do it working 60+ hour work weeks but I'm sure you have an amazing excuse to outsource your parental responsibilities...

You did well, great! Most from the inner city and council estates do not. Poor logic to take one case (yours) and extrapolate it to being the same across the board.

How exactly do you equate my not wanting my kids to go to school with knackers as making me a bad parent?

Your 60+ hour week point is irrelevent as i hope you understand there are many fee-paying schools that are not boarding? So i would have the same time for my kids as any other parent.

This thread reeks of jealousy and "well-for-some". Not sure where you get off trying to insult me for wanting a better education and surroundings for my kids?

Tordelback

The only arguments that matter here are the ones about reducing strain on the public purse and at the same time maintaining educational standards. If anyone can produce convincing figures that show the system will benefit to such an extent that the net inconvenience of the change is worthwhile, then we should do it. Or not. The rest is precious ideological tub-thumping that we can't afford.

Incidentally, my kids go to an Educate Together primary (and a great school it is too), but the incessant 'suggested' parental top-ups and fundraising efforts that are required to keep the place going in the absence of parochial support make me wonder at the myth of 'free' education. My estimate would be about 400-500 euro per kid per year 'donated' to the school. Am I much different from a parent 'topping up' state funding in a private school, except by degree?

CruelCoin

jmayo wrote: »

So are you saying that anyone that goes to public schools are of a lower class ?

No, where did i say that? I said not in exact words that fee-paying schools have a higher class of average student. And they do. Am i wrong? I'm not.

So do I.
I think most parents do.
Although I question what is your definition of a professional career.
To me most people in the old professions i.e. doctors, bankers, dentists, legal professionals are leeching sh**s.
I don't particularly want my kids to be one of those and I don't want my kids to associate with snobs either.

Each of those professions take dedication, years of graft, and high intelligence to succeed in. How is being a dedicated individual being a snob? Not everyone can be a doctor, everyone can however be a brickie.




Excuse me, I attended a public school and believe it or not I managed to get as far as a masters degree in an engineering discipline.
And from memory the vast majority of those I attended college with did not come from private school background.
Of course I did not go to UCD or Trinity, so I guess you would also frown on that. :rolleyes:
Fecking hell we must all have been tinkers.

Great, glad you did well. Most private schools attend private college, go abroad to good uni's, or attend UCD/TCD/DCU as these are recognised as having better respected degrees and the best lecturers etc. Is it elitist to want to study in the place with the best teachers/facilities?
Given a choice between DIT and the three above, most would pick TCD/DCU/UCD for exactly the reasons i gave.

Are you kids so vulmerable or is the local public school so bad that all the students are destined to scrape by the leaving cert or become brickies ?

Again, not all, but most. Look at the school charts when they come out again. The vast majority of fee-paying schools outperform the vast majority of public schools. Given a choice, being able to afford it and having knowledge on which schools do better, why in the hell would i voluntarily send my kids to one of the worse ones? Imposing your "i hate snobs" morals on your kids is bogus.


Ehh I think you do have an elitist attitude and if your kids are going to be the same as you then I hope to hell my kids never bring one of them home.
Of course your precious ones would probably not be caught dead with someone of a lower class. :rolleyes:

Not bothered with mud-slinging, so i'll not reciprocate. But i reckon you believe my not partaking makes me more of a snob?

Mine in red above.

CruelCoin

Tordelback wrote: »

The only arguments that matter here are the ones about reducing strain on the public purse and at the same time maintaining educational standards. If anyone can produce convincing figures that show the system will benefit to such an extent that the net inconvenience of the change is worthwhile, then we should do it. Or not. The rest is precious ideological tub-thumping that we can't afford.

Incidentally, my kids go to an Educate Together primary (and a great school it is too), but the incessant 'suggested' parental top-ups and fundraising efforts that are required to keep the place going in the absence of parochial support make me wonder at the myth of 'free' education. My estimate would be about 400-500 euro per kid per year 'donated' to the school. Am I much different from a parent 'topping up' state funding in a private school, except by degree?

Fee paying schools also rely heavily on fund-raising. The fund raising never stops.

Those tennis courts/rugby pitchs/drama stages/music rooms, etc aren't cheap.

Tordelback

CruelCoin wrote: »

Fee paying schools also rely heavily on fund-raising. The fund raising never stops.

Those tennis courts/rugby pitchs/drama stages/music rooms, etc aren't cheap.

Well indeed - and in fact my estimate of our annual donations didn't even include sport or music or any of that, all of which is extra to the tune of 60-100 per activity per term (so just 1 sport and 1 other activity will cost another 500 or so per year, bringing the free schooling experience to around 1000 p.a. per kid).

The reality of 'public' schools is that the standard of facilities, extra-curricular activities, etc. is already in the hands of parents (except where the churches have their weasely way). In the putative absence of borderline-affordable private schools part-funded by the taxpayer, instead public schools in better-off areas will enjoy better 'voluntary' funding from the same parents, and many of the same inequalities will persist on a geographical basis. So what changes, except the creation of super-elite schools for the usual suspects?

Zab

jmayo wrote: »

Do I note an air of condescension ?
It would be par for the course I guess, if it is coming from those who come from the privately educated section of our society.

You do not. I was marvelling at the fact that can sit there and moan about *your* taxes being used for *their* kids' education when they pay taxes too and their education costs the state less than yours because they choose to subsidise it themselves. So both of you pay taxes, your little darlings cost more than theirs, but somehow you manage to construe this as you subsidising them.

dizzywizlw

CruelCoin wrote: »

You did well, great! Most from the inner city and council estates do not. Poor logic to take one case (yours) and extrapolate it to being the same across the board.

How exactly do you equate my not wanting my kids to go to school with knackers as making me a bad parent?

Your 60+ hour week point is irrelevent as i hope you understand there are many fee-paying schools that are not boarding? So i would have the same time for my kids as any other parent.

This thread reeks of jealousy and "well-for-some". Not sure where you get off trying to insult me for wanting a better education and surroundings for my kids?

I don't want to get into anything too heavy but at least 30 out of the 35 are in third level education coming from a mixed working-middle class area but I take your point as to the case specific nature of these things.

It does not make you a bad parent in the sense that you don't want your kids in any sort of danger or the underachieve by association. However it is quite a poor decision to try an sociologically condition your child into a specific strata of society be that indeed knackers or the well off. In this your are setting your Children to actually believe that they are apart by virtue of their position rather than their moral and personal qualities. You and your partner could naturally negate this but it is essentially a problem you are creating from my year groups experience (coming from a mixed associative environment as I do)

The 60 hours point was meant to highlight that I did not have as much 'contact' time with my parents as children these days would. It was merely highlighting that fact that is is possible and has been done that you are paying for the ease as much as the higher-quality. You can want the best for your kids all you want and I would never tell you to not strive to give them a 'better' life.

I apologies if it came across as jealously or intentionally insulting in a direct sense. it was meant from a fairness point of view rather than begrudery.

Allow me therefore to qualify my previous statements:

A) You should bear the sole cost AS WELL as the state cost for non 'private' schools
You conceptualization of 'better' is skewed and psychologically unhealthy for a child, that is, there is a correlation not a causation between the personality and environment you seek to give your children
C) As there is no causation your decision is based on perceived rather than actual necessity and hence you are paying for an easier ride as a parent. (I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing).


Essentially: You're right to pay for superior knowledge but your mentality about social and psychological growth is skewed by your own world view. I'm sure you'd rather a friendly, affable solicitor for a son rather than an arrogant posh so and so. You as a parent are primarily responsible for that outcome so IF you think you can ensure a well-round AND successful child go right ahead but it will NOT create a well-rounded person it will in fact retard your childs ability to function in society overall.

laugh

To those people who think parents should pay the entire cost of fee/"private" schools, how much of an increased tax allowance are you considering for people whose children don't burden the public education system?

Middle class people paying the brunt of taxation decide to spend their own additional money for a better education for their children, creating jobs, in some cases catering for a minority ethos and there are people idiot enough to think it shouldn't happen.

dizzywizlw

laugh wrote: »

To those people who think parents should pay the entire cost of fee/"private" schools, how much of an increased tax allowance are you considering for people whose children don't burden the public education system?

Middle class people paying the brunt of taxation decide to spend their own additional money for a better education for their children, creating jobs, in some cases catering for a minority ethos and there are people idiot enough to think it shouldn't happen.

None because it's a public good. Let's give people who walk and don't get sick tax breaks too...

Stark

jmayo wrote: »

Excuse me, I attended a public school and believe it or not I managed to get as far as a masters degree in an engineering discipline.

And yet so angry at the world... For the record, I went to "public" school myself and did very well out of it. If other parents want to shell out hard earned cash to give their kids what I received for free from the State, that's their prerogative. I've no qualms with anyone subventing the State coffers. I was also lucky enough to be born to Catholic parents, so had the option of a free education in exchange from having to listen to a couple of hours of bull**** a week.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Public Schools ?

The state doesn't provide any primary or secondary schools - please correct me if I'm wrong. (*shudders at the old young offenders institutes*)

Private groups do (for their own reasons) and then claim back costs.

Until comparatively recently these private groups were almost exclusively religious or political groups.

Well there are the community schools, not sure if they count. But other than that, I think we're getting at the same point. In many areas, there are "non-fee paying" schools for Catholics and fee-paying schools for everyone else.

CruelCoin

dizzywizlw wrote: »

I don't want to get into anything too heavy but at least 30 out of the 35 are in third level education coming from a mixed working-middle class area but I take your point as to the case specific nature of these things.

Are you talking all working and middle (i'd agree with that) or working-middle, as in middle-lower to lower-middle. (wouldn't agree).

It does not make you a bad parent in the sense that you don't want your kids in any sort of danger or the underachieve by association. However it is quite a poor decision to try an sociologically condition your child into a specific strata of society be that indeed knackers or the well off. In this your are setting your Children to actually believe that they are apart by virtue of their position rather than their moral and personal qualities. You and your partner could naturally negate this but it is essentially a problem you are creating from my year groups experience (coming from a mixed associative environment as I do)
That strata has lcd's! lcd's be bitchin'. :P
Don't get me wrong, i'm not a person who believes in social classes as being definite barriers, and promotion/socialising etc as restricted to "within your class". I do notice however that those from upper classes tend to have a higher level of education, have bigger houses, travel more, etc etc.
I DO NOT want my children to be part of the upper echelons as part of a desire to see them distance themselves from "the plebs". I want them to get there as thats where the really cool consumerist stuff / quality of life is!
I have friends from all walks of life. I just have a preference on what path i want to walk.

The 60 hours point was meant to highlight that I did not have as much 'contact' time with my parents as children these days would. It was merely highlighting that fact that is is possible and has been done that you are paying for the ease as much as the higher-quality. You can want the best for your kids all you want and I would never tell you to not strive to give them a 'better' life.

My parents were and still are self employed with 60 hours a week easily. Did they send me to boarding school on the basis of making things easier for themselves? No, i asked to be sent to boarding, as i thought it would lead to a more rounded education/sporting experience, which it did.

I apologies if it came across as jealously or intentionally insulting in a direct sense. it was meant from a fairness point of view rather than begrudery.
And appologies for being short in return.


Allow me therefore to qualify my previous statements:

A) You should bear the sole cost AS WELL as the state cost for non 'private' schools
No. The state has the responsibility to provide education up to secondary level. The parents have the right to supplement it, such is the right to do with their money as they will. Being able to afford better does not sipose of the governments responsibility to provide the basic level.
You conceptualization of 'better' is skewed and psychologically unhealthy for a child, that is, there is a correlation not a causation between the personality and environment you seek to give your children
School is one part of many, i agree. I'm focusing on it as thats the focus of the thread. This manifests itself in many ways, e.g: kids coming home and watching the discovery channel with them as opposed to gaa/wwf/ultraextrememegaawesomespectacularnessuber sports channel.
C) As there is no causation your decision is based on perceived rather than actual necessity and hence you are paying for an easier ride as a parent. (I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing).
Do i "have to", no, i do "want to", and in today's capitalistic and consumerist society, that is no less a motivator or justifier than having to.

Essentially: You're right to pay for superior knowledge but your mentality about social and psychological growth is skewed by your own world view. I'm sure you'd rather a friendly, affable solicitor for a son rather than an arrogant posh so and so. You as a parent are primarily responsible for that outcome so IF you think you can ensure a well-round AND successful child go right ahead but it will NOT create a well-rounded person it will in fact retard your childs ability to function in society overall.
I want the brains of a judge, but the affability of a solicitor in one package. Poshnees/snobbery is not (i hope) automatically associated with better education.

Ok, here we go. I don't have your language skills and have not had my 10th cup of coffee yet (lagging behind on 8) so bear with me.

Mine in red above, sorry, but not very good with quote multiple quotes so this is easier for me.

Equality

Does anyone know if the state counts non-EU students (or EU students whose parents do not live in Ireland) who are attending private second level schools in Ireland when allocating state funds for the payment of teachers in these schools? If they are counted this suggests that taxpayers money is being used to fund students who have no entitlement to such funding.

CruelCoin

Equality wrote: »

Does anyone know if the state counts non-EU students (or EU students whose parents do not live in Ireland) who are attending private second level schools in Ireland when allocating state funds for the payment of teachers in these schools? If they are counted this suggests that taxpayers money is being used to fund students who have no entitlement to such funding.

To be able to stay for that long would imply a residency visa (open to correction).

I think I'm right in saying the government has to provide education to all residents, not just citizens. (again open to correction).

CruelCoin

Stark wrote: »

I was also lucky enough to be born to Catholic parents, so had the option of a free education in exchange from having to listen to a couple of hours of bull**** a week.

You don't need to have catholic/religious parents to attend any school. Just lie on the forms. That's what my parents done.
The result being me being sent to a boarding school with mandatory religious teaching a few times a week, daily 20 minute church goings, and the odd Sunday mass.
Meh, me being an atheist, it just gave me extra time to sleep which i was grateful for.

jackal

Well the divide and conquer strategy seems to be working well.

I think it has been well established that this will have a net cost to the state in a few years. A lot of private schools are struggling, a lot of parents who send their children to private schools are struggling, and adding another 4k a year will simply make it a non-option for all but the most minted. So the majority of those students sent to fee paying schools by the struggling middle class will just have to leave and join the public system.

Then we will have overcrowding and all the usual crap and the government will trot out the usual "Who could have foreseen the problems that have arisen..." lines and all our children will be ever so slightly worse off.

I went to a private school, it had it's pros and cons, it was a middle of the road one, not particularly well known. There were some excellent teachers and some trainwrecks. Mostly the trainwrecks were not in the important classes, so I guess thats good for the students trying to maximise their points.

The fact that *everybody* who sends their kids to a fee paying school is a tax contributor cannot be ignored. Their children have a right to a state funded education too. This is like something from old ireland, where the begrudgers want to bring everyone down to their level. We are not communists last time I checked.

If people can pay in an attempt to further their childs future, so be it. The child will still need to work hard to achieve in a completely democratic examination. Going to a private school does not "buy" a future. But it can buy things like sports equipment, excursions, extra-curricular activities, decent computers for the lab, things like that.

It's like lord of the flies here sometimes, the government chuck's a grenade in the room and quietly tip toes away, leaving the citizens to tear strips out of each other while ignoring the fact that the government is making a complete bollox of things.

"Put an Irishman on the spit and you can always get another Irishman to turn him."

dizzywizlw

CruelCoin wrote: »

Ok, here we go. I don't have your language skills and have not had my 10th cup of coffee yet (lagging behind on 8) so bear with me.

Mine in red above, sorry, but not very good with quote multiple quotes so this is easier for me.

Fiar play, although if they become CMAs I may have to hate them n between yawns

CruelCoin

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Fiar play, although if they become CMAs I may have to hate them n between yawns

CMAs?

Milk & Honey

laugh wrote: »

To those people who think parents should pay the entire cost of fee/"private" schools, how much of an increased tax allowance are you considering for people whose children don't burden the public education system?

None. If the state schools aren't good enough for them they can pay for their own schools themselves. Schools are not about a refund of tax. Should taxpayers in wealthier areas have better roads since they pay more tax? Should there be more Gardai allocated to areas where the per capita tax payment is highest? In many cases there are people whose children are in private schools who pay little or no tax. They take advantage of every tax dodge going with shares in nursing homes, holiday homes and BES schemes.

Zab

In many cases there are people whose children are in private schools who pay little or no tax.

Oh yeah?

They take advantage of every tax dodge going with shares in nursing homes, holiday homes and BES schemes.

And these result in paying little or no tax, do they?

I no longer see the point in discussing this with you fanatics.

Chinasea

There should be no argument here whatsoever.

• If you want to run a private school then do so at your own expense.
  
• If you want to run an airey fairey school than do so at your own expense.
  
• If you want to run a school with religion than do so at your own expense.
  
• I want my tax used to educate in a non denominational non fee paying school.

However I believe that we must all contribute somewhat to schooling and that there is much more enforcement with regards to non attendance at school as I believe Ireland boasts one of the highest illiterate rates in Europe.

Milk & Honey

Zab wrote: »

Oh yeah?



And these result in paying little or no tax, do they?

Yes.

Zab

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Yes.

You're wrong

Milk & Honey

Zab wrote: »

You're wrong

far from it. I know a man who had two daughters in a private school. He had a tax free rental income of €200,000 per year.