Private School Funding

Zab

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, I did go on to say it is hard to quantify. I'm just putting these figures out there as many seem to just state it will cost us more, without thinking about it.

So how much did you think the state paid? you seemed cynical of 4k.

There are a few figures bandied around for how much extra it costs the state to have somebody in a free school rather than a fee paying school. You're saying €345 (no way this is the correct figure imo), Quinn says €830 and Eoghan Murphy says €3500. The difference combined with the number of students that would end up in "free" schools would tell you whether the state would save money or not. In my opinion, if it's either of the first two figures then the state will surely end up saving money.

That said for my purposes it isn't a simple question of which is cheapest, but rather what is the correct course of action. After all the state could stop paying for any number of things to save money if they weren't at all concerned with fairness. I think the current system, where the state contributes to all and lets parents subsidise if they want, is a fair one. The question of whether these schools are a good thing or not is down to the parent. I think if they do stop paying for the salary, things will stratify and the "private" secondary schools that stay private will end up truly elitist and more along the lines of public schools in the UK.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, I did go on to say it is hard to quantify. I'm just putting these figures out there as many seem to just state it will cost us more, without thinking about it.

So how much did you think the state paid? you seemed cynical of 4k.

Let's assume it is €4,000 (I think it's slightly less, but hey ho). If someone moves from the fee charging to the free sector that figure increases. Why?

First of all it doesn't reduce, because it is paying for teachers. If the kid or the school moves into the free sector, then the money still has to be paid.

Secondly it increases because free schools get more teachers than fee charging schools. I'm not sure what the gap is, but I think it's about 10%. So an increase of 10% when a school or a kid moves across to the free sector adds about €400.

There's a third increase because free schools get capitation of €345 per student and fee charging schools don't get that. And there's another one because free schools get €40 per student for secretarial and maintenance/caretaking. So when a kid or school moves over to the free sector that's an extra €385.

The whole lot adds up to €4,785 as far as I can see, unless I'm missing some grants paid to free schools. And that doesn't count costs for capital building works, which the State pays for free schools.

So, if the State decides not to pay for teachers working in fee charging schools, it takes a gamble. If the school stays fee charging and the kids don't shift schools, the State saves €96 million or so. If a school jumps to the free system or students shift to free schools, the State loses about €4,785 per student - while the parents make a saving of whatever they were paying in fees.

So if all 26,000 students in the fee charging sector shifted, the State would have a net loss of €28.4 million - that's €124.4 million total cost for the students minus the €96 million the State is already spending.

Anyone want to calculate the actual risk to the State? I reckon the break even point is around 20,000. I estimate that as long as 20,000 students or less jump ship and switch to the free scheme, then Ireland Inc won't lose money.

It's a gamble, but it might work.

Seanchai

Seanchai wrote: »

It's obscene that this state is subsidising the schools of private organisations like the RC church, CoI and the rest of them.

Your location says that you live in the United Kingdom. You might be so kind as to clarify what you mean by "this state".

Seanchai wrote: »

All state-funded schools in Ireland should be owned by the state, rather than state money being used to prop up private entities.

The concept of workers' paradises has already been tried, and failed. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War; no point in trying to re-start it 20+ years later.

Seanchai wrote: »

If the mammy and daddy of Maximilian, Benjamin, Adam, James and the rest want to send their children to a fee-paying school let them.

The only Maximilian I know went to the Marist Brothers in Dundalk in the 1970s (mind you, we called him Max. as he would have kicked the ****e out of anyone calling him by his full name). I know a number of Benjamins (four, as it happens). With one exception, they are all what I would call solid working class lads (mind you, we call them Ben). The fourth is a bit more middle class, but all the same he is a trade unionist and (IIRC) member of People Before Profit. Two of my nieces have boys called Adam; they are both single mothers in council houses. And James? James? Are you for real?

Maybe the above qualify as "snobbish" names in the UK - but we don't all do things quite the same way in this country.

Seanchai wrote: »

The truth of the matter is, though, that most of the parents in question are not working smartly enough to earn enough money to send their children to an entirely fee-paying school.

What on Earth does that mean?

Seanchai

Deleted User wrote: »

Your location says that you live in the United Kingdom.

Does it now? This reading thing seems to be posing remedial difficulties for you.

Deleted User wrote: »

The concept of workers' paradises has already been tried, and failed.

This is really profound. I can envisage you standing up at a L&H debate in Theatre L in about 1970 declaring this among a whiff of self-satisfaction. The name's McDowell, Michael McDowell.

Deleted User wrote: »

What on Earth does that mean?

It means that if these parents with aspirations who send their whippersnappers to state-subsidised private fee-paying schools were smart enough to earn more money they would not need to depend upon the state subsidy and could afford the c. €15,000 fee per annum. As it stands, they are only paying c. €5,500 per annum because this state subsidises their personal choices. Work smarter, and this state subvention for your educational choices will not bother you because you'll be earning enough.

In other words, to put it in a rightwing capitalist market framework: only loser parents will sulk when this state subvention is withdrawn and they have to send their kids to the local, shudder, tech/community college. The winner parents will be able to work smarter and pay the extra €10k in fees per annum.

K-9

You're adding €385 to the 4k, not subtracting the 4k and seeing what extra cost ensues, why? You could easily add a couple of students per class and not need any extra teachers, so the 4k is gone, no additional teaching cost at all.

I notice this from this thread and the one in politics, some people look at this from a private school point of view. I'm looking at it from a state finance point of view.

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's assume it is €4,000 (I think it's slightly less, but hey ho). If someone moves from the fee charging to the free sector that figure increases. Why?

First of all it doesn't reduce, because it is paying for teachers. If the kid or the school moves into the free sector, then the money still has to be paid.

Secondly it increases because free schools get more teachers than fee charging schools. I'm not sure what the gap is, but I think it's about 10%. So an increase of 10% when a school or a kid moves across to the free sector adds about €400.

There's a third increase because free schools get capitation of €345 per student and fee charging schools don't get that. And there's another one because free schools get €40 per student for secretarial and maintenance/caretaking. So when a kid or school moves over to the free sector that's an extra €385.

The whole lot adds up to €4,785 as far as I can see, unless I'm missing some grants paid to free schools. And that doesn't count costs for capital building works, which the State pays for free schools.

So, if the State decides not to pay for teachers working in fee charging schools, it takes a gamble. If the school stays fee charging and the kids don't shift schools, the State saves €96 million or so. If a school jumps to the free system or students shift to free schools, the State loses about €4,785 per student - while the parents make a saving of whatever they were paying in fees.

So if all 26,000 students in the fee charging sector shifted, the State would have a net loss of €28.4 million - that's €124.4 million total cost for the students minus the €96 million the State is already spending.

Anyone want to calculate the actual risk to the State? I reckon the break even point is around 20,000. I estimate that as long as 20,000 students or less jump ship and switch to the free scheme, then Ireland Inc won't lose money.

It's a gamble, but it might work.

Seanchai

Seanchai wrote: »

Does it now? This reading thing seems to be posing remedial difficulties for you.

Nope, your location poses no difficulties in reading or understanding. It translates into English as Belfast, which is in the United Kingdom. Perhaps you were referring to the sectarian fault lines along which the education sector is organised and funded in Northern Ireland when you said "this state". Or perhaps you were pretending to live in the same state that I live in. Your call.

Seanchai wrote: »

This is really profound. I can envisage you standing up at a L&H debate in Theatre L in about 1970 declaring this among a whiff of self-satisfaction. The name's McDowell, Michael McDowell.

This lowest common denominator one-size-fits-all politics was tried already. It flickered briefly, but then it sank without trace. If you believe in it that's a matter for you. If you believe in forcing that down the necks of everyone else that's hardly a surprise - as I recall from the days of the Iron Curtain, that anti-people attitude came with the territory.

Seanchai wrote: »

It means that if these parents with aspirations who send their whippersnappers to state-subsidised private fee-paying schools were smart enough to earn more money they would not need to depend upon the state subsidy and could afford the c. €15,000 fee per annum. As it stands, they are only paying c. €5,500 per annum because this state subsidises their personal choices. Work smarter, and this state subvention for your educational choices will not bother you because you'll be earning enough.

Ah, I see. You're being pejorative because you don't approve of their choices. As it happens, I think the State (my State; how yours runs itself is a matter for people who live in it) should exercise a policy to suit its needs, and right now the most significant imperative is financial. The Irish government should do whatever is most likely to save money for the Exchequer

Seanchai wrote: »

In other words, to put it in a rightwing capitalist market framework: only loser parents will sulk when this state subvention is withdrawn and they have to send their kids to the local, shudder, tech/community college. The winner parents will be able to work smarter and pay the extra €10k in fees per annum.

If only that were certain - the result, that is; I'm not complaining about the market frame of reference. If the State decides to withdraw teacher allocations to the fee charging schools, then the schools or students who shift to the free sector will cost the taxpayer (or maybe the German taxpayer) about €4,800. If too many students "jump ship", the State will make a loss on the deal. And that would be bad.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

You're adding €385 to the 4k, not subtracting the 4k and seeing what extra cost ensues, why? You could easily add a couple of students per class and not need any extra teachers, so the 4k is gone, no additional teaching cost at all.

I notice this from this thread and the one in politics, some people look at this from a private school point of view. I'm looking at it from a state finance point of view.

I'm looking at it from an Exchequer viewpoint as well. You can't subtract the €4K, for two reasons. First of all, I started out by subtracting all the €4Ks - that gives the initial saving of €96 million.

Secondly, the €4K is a function of the number of teachers that the State gives to the schools. You can't "add a couple of students per class and not need any extra teachers", because it just doesn't work that way. Teachers are allotted to schools using a mathematical formula. If a fee charging school shifts into the free sector, the formula kicks in and the State has to keep giving the teachers it is supplying to the school - plus a further 10%.

If individual students shift schools, what happens in each school will vary depending on the number already in the school. Some schools will have no change, and some schools will - but on average across all schools the number of teachers will increase by 1 for every 20 students who move into them. It might not seem true, but if you test it with a few scenarios you'll see that it is as near as makes no difference to a mathematical certainty.

The only way to avoid teacher numbers rising in the free schools that would be taking on kids shifting from fee charging schools would be to change the mathematical rules and thereby cut the State allocation to all schools.

kowloon

steddyeddy wrote: »

I’m going to have to echo Madam x's wonderful post...

Get a room

K-9

It depends what the suggestion is, either scrap the subsidy completely or phase it in. I don't think either will happen but they would phase it in if it ever happened. If it was phased in over say 4 years I'd say you'd see a lot less leaving private schools as they adapted to the hit.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm looking at it from an Exchequer viewpoint as well. You can't subtract the €4K, for two reasons. First of all, I started out by subtracting all the €4Ks - that gives the initial saving of €96 million.

Secondly, the €4K is a function of the number of teachers that the State gives to the schools. You can't "add a couple of students per class and not need any extra teachers", because it just doesn't work that way. Teachers are allotted to schools using a mathematical formula. If a fee charging school shifts into the free sector, the formula kicks in and the State has to keep giving the teachers it is supplying to the school - plus a further 10%.

If individual students shift schools, what happens in each school will vary depending on the number already in the school. Some schools will have no change, and some schools will - but on average across all schools the number of teachers will increase by 1 for every 20 students who move into them. It might not seem true, but if you test it with a few scenarios you'll see that it is as near as makes no difference to a mathematical certainty.

The only way to avoid teacher numbers rising in the free schools that would be taking on kids shifting from fee charging schools would be to change the mathematical rules and thereby cut the State allocation to all schools.

jackal

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes indeed. Several papers have been put forward detailing the correlation between environment and academic and ability to learn. A more stimulating environment, more attention given to the subject (pupil) and ethos of class environment have positively correlated with better academic performance. Of the studies there have been many conclusions based on class environment e.g. Sandra Scarr-Salapatek et alls paper found that the contribution of genetic variance in IQ test results tended to be larger in a more stimulating environment and proportionately smaller in a disadvantaged environment.

Pupils in schools with student pupil ratios that allow the student greater time with an educator (be that teacher or grind giver) are subject to greater Brain plasticity ( the brain's ability to change structure and function) than those in a less advantaged environment. Going to a school where the teachers encourage you to do well is at odds where the teachers don’t give a monkeys about your career. I don’t think wealth of your parents should dictate that ability to fulfil genetic potential for intelligence.

You seem to be somehow blaming the failure of the public school system to maximise a child's potential on fact that private schools need extra money to achieve this.

Nobody is debating that a school where teachers give children more attention and encourage them to do well, will likely produce students that achieve their potential. People do not send their children to private schools in the hope they will achieve mediocre results.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Its time to flag a cab and head to real street. Horse riding lessons, christmas in the bahamas do not equal a fair chance to get your kids into college on my planet.

Everyone has a fair chance: its called the leaving certificate. Parents doing the best they can for their children in their circumstances is in no way "unfair". Grinds, canny subject choice, extra study, application, having a role model, achievement in sports, having a goal, etc. all these things contribute to how someone will perform in an exam.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Which is being used to give their child an advantage over an already disadvantaged children in some cases.

By definition a disadvantaged child will have disadvantages. Do you want to drag all children down to the level of the lowest common denominator?

Should striving for achievement be outlawed lest the slowest child is somehow disadvantaged?

steddyeddy wrote: »

My contention is that a more stimulating enviroment in the form of private schools (I use stimulating to include attention given by educator ect) have been responsible for sending more children to college than a lot of other colleges. Parents who could afford to pay more can get their children into this college and thus the children are more likely to go to college based on that economic choice.

The point about taking places refers to the limited amount of college places available. Traditionally private school children were more likely to progress to college based on that economic advantage. Thus one less place is available. As previously mentioned academic ability is greatly increased in response to enviroment.

Socio economics of ones parents determining likelyhood of entering college in part negate the intelligence requirment of college. Hence in my experience it is easier to get into college with a lower academic potential if you come from a private school with all the advantages that confers.

Your basic point seems to be that better education equals better results. I don't think anybody would debate that with you. The fact that money can often buy better education is also a fact the world over, again no debate there.

The problem is in the public school system. If it is not doing as well as the private system, why not? Would more funding help? Are people prepared to pay more tax for it?

You seem to be arguing that fee paying schools are a way of buying your child into college. they are not, but if a child has the potential to go to college, then a private school is the best way to unlock that potential.

A lot of children in the public system are probably not going to unlock their potential, and that's a pity, but that's not the fault of the fee paying school system.

Undercover Elephant

jackal wrote: »

Your basic point seems to be that better education equals better results. I don't think anybody would debate that with you. The fact that money can often buy better education is also a fact the world over, again no debate there.

Actually, I would.

Entrance to Chicago schools is on a lottery basis, so obviously the "better" schools are in heavy demand. And you would expect that when you adjust for external socio-economic factors, the children whose parents "won" the lottery got better results than the children of the parents who "lost", right?

But the data doesn't show that at all. The statistically significant difference is whether you enter the lottery in the first place. Actually winning it makes no difference at all - in terms of results. And socio-economic factors, even within the free public system, made a significant difference.

Exam results are a poor proxy for life outcomes, of course.

CruelCoin

Deleted User wrote: »

What on Earth does that mean?

Basically he's saying idiots do poorly in society, and can't afford it. Darwinism, blah blah.

Bit crude and harsh, but true to a certain extent.

steddyeddy

CruelCoin wrote: »

Basically he's saying idiots do poorly in society, and can't afford it. Darwinism, blah blah.

Bit crude and harsh, but true to a certain extent.

But in fairness he rasies a point. Why would it be bad that middle class people couldnt afford it if they had to pay full fees? So what if only the rich could afford it.

steddyeddy

As regards the public funding I think it should be withdrawn. Its giving those children who can afford it an advantage over those the children of those who cant afford it. The parents of those children who cant put their children in private school shouldnt be paying taxes to give other children an advantage over theirs its obscene.

To reply to the people who think that private school doesnt offer an advantage I disagree as do the league tables.

Thousands of people are still prepared to pay the cost of private education for their children.

League tables published in newspapers today show fee-paying schools fare best in sending students to third level education.

The Irish Times 2011 School League Tables show that the pupils that are most successful in securing places in TCD and UCD are mostly those from the fee paying institutions.

This list is topped by Gonzaga, with Glenstal of Limerick second. Other Dublin schools that feature prominently in this list include Mount Anville; St Conleth's in Ballsbridge; Holy Child in Killiney; and Alexandra College in Milltown.

If theres no advantage to private schools then why are parents sending their kids to them.

Zab

steddyeddy wrote: »

The parents of those children who cant put their children in private school shouldnt be paying taxes to give other children an advantage over theirs its obscene.

Hard to take you seriously if you say this

steddyeddy

Zab wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

The parents of those children who cant put their children in private school shouldnt be paying taxes to give other children an advantage over theirs its obscene.

Hard to take you seriously if you say this

To be honest I wouldnt expect a decent arguement against my point. A lot of people dont even seem to think private schools confer advantage. If you are able to you should outline why private school goers dont have advantages then do so.

Lord TSC

steddyeddy wrote: »

The parents of those children who cant put their children in private school shouldnt be paying taxes to give other children an advantage over theirs its obscene.

Here, here!

And while we're at it, I don't want my taxes going towards ANY service I can't and don't personally use. I've not been sick for a while, and even if I am, I will only use one hospital, so no hospitals other than my local one should get any of my tax money. And I don't use public transport, so no more taxes there either please. I get nothing from overseas aid, the defense forces and a string of other things I am paying taxes for, so no more of my money to them either while we're at it....

Taxes are used for a variety of reasons and we don't always get to avail of the benefits directly. The rich could claim to refuse to want to pay taxes cause they don't want to fund the lifestyles of those on the dole, and the poor claim they don't want to pay taxes to help educate the rich; to educate those who could go on to be our Doctors, our accountants, our lawyers, etc. But that's the society we live in today; we pay taxes to help the country, as a whole, continue to run. We all get some benefit out of it, maybe not in the short term via an obvious route, but definitely in the long run, even if in a more subtle way.

goat2

Seanchai wrote: »

Title should be changed: Fee-paying school

.

If the mammy and daddy of Maximilian, Benjamin, Adam, James and the rest want to send their children to a fee-paying school let them. However, this state should not be subsidising that preference with money that could be invested in building a state school system. It's indefensible.

The truth of the matter is, though, that most of the parents in question are not working smartly enough to earn enough money to send their children to an entirely fee-paying school. And that is why these parents are being parasites of the Irish state. Time to end this nonsense.

i dont agree,
i think that the parents who are sending their offsprings to a fee paying school are saving the state money,
they are paying a certain percentage of their childs education out of their own pockets,
while me and others like me sent ours to the state school system and cost the taxpayer more than those who went to i fee paying

and any way all children are entitled to free education, while some among us helped to educate theirs by paying fees.

so i dont see any problem with a certain amount being given by the government to keep the fee paying schools afloat,
it is win, win, for all of us

smirker

I think private schools are a bad idea and taxes should not be wasted on them. There will always be people who are rich enough to educate their children privately, so why should my tax money go to them?There are other who can't afford private education at all. There are some who can only afford it because the state subsidises it. They should be made go to state schools where they belong and give up their "keeping up with the Joneses mentality".

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

If you are able to you should outline why private school goers dont have advantages then do so.

Why? If you make the claim that fee charging schools confer advantages then you should be able to say what they are.

smirker wrote: »

I think private schools are a bad idea and taxes should not be wasted on them. There will always be people who are rich enough to educate their children privately, so why should my tax money go to them?

Fair enough. Why should people who can afford to send their kids to fee charging schools waste their tax money on the free schools?

Let them pay the full cost of their fee charging schools, and give them a tax deduction because they don't use the free schools.

It works in healthcare, so why not in education as well?

football_lover

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?

It sounds simple to say they should pay there own way.

But what happens if the parent cannot afford the whole cost. These children will end up in state education and that will cost the government more anyway.

The children's parents pay taxes and to a point there education should be covered by this.

If people what these parents to cover the whole cost then they will need to be entitled to a tax rebate since there child is not getting a benefit from the education system that is supported by taxation anyway.

The issue can get quite complicated.

football_lover

RoyalMarine wrote: »

Why should tax payers money pay salaries of teachers in private schools when the majority of tax payers children don't go to these schools?

I went to a private school. I am no better educated than my friends who went to public schools.

Private schools should pay teachers 100% of their wages.

If that is the case the parent of children who attend fee paying schools should get a tax rebate for the difference in tax against the contribution of government payments to these schools.

What is the point of paying taxes if people cannot benefit from such a system.

I pay high taxes my self but get very little in return yet some body else can pay smaller payments than me and get free healthcare and lots of services in a city.

football_lover

Zamboni wrote: »

Bit dramatic.
Private enterprise is private enterprise. If the business model has become overly dependent on state support and is not viable on an independant basis then blame the management not the tax payer.

But the parents of children who attend these schools actually pay taxes as well.

A person who can pay lower taxes can get free healthcare and there children's education fully funded by the state not part fund fully.


How about a system of tax rebates were parents in this situation get something back out of the system.

I pay enough taxes to support several children in state schools over the years yet I get little return.

And to had extra insult there is now the property tax on a property that I fully own. I get very little services. My water and waste is all serviced from my property.

There is a road leading to the house but my car tax and fuel tax should cover this. I am not against taxation if it is fair. Cutting this contribution will be an extra insult to parents in this situation.

Zab

steddyeddy wrote: »

To be honest I wouldnt expect a decent arguement against my point. A lot of people dont even seem to think private schools confer advantage. If you are able to you should outline why private school goers dont have advantages then do so.

Of course they have an advantage if they've been born into a wealthy family, but you're missing the point. You said "The parents of those children who cant put their children in private school shouldnt be paying taxes to give other children an advantage over theirs its obscene", but this ignores the fact that they *aren't* paying taxes to do that, the parents of the private school kid are. They then have to supplement their own taxes.

goat2

smirker wrote: »

I think private schools are a bad idea and taxes should not be wasted on them. There will always be people who are rich enough to educate their children privately, so why should my tax money go to them?There are other who can't afford private education at all. There are some who can only afford it because the state subsidises it. They should be made go to state schools where they belong and give up their "keeping up with the Joneses mentality".

but more of their tax money is spent on your and mine who go to public school, than our tax money used on their children,
i dont care who send their children to private school and i dont mind a small bit of tax going to them, while they are not complaining that they are paying tax to look after our children

goat2

football_lover wrote: »

But the parents of children who attend these schools actually pay taxes as well.

A person who can pay lower taxes can get free healthcare and there children's education fully funded by the state not part fund fully.


How about a system of tax rebates were parents in this situation get something back out of the system.

I pay enough taxes to support several children in state schools over the years yet I get little return.

And to had extra insult there is now the property tax on a property that I fully own. I get very little services. My water and waste is all serviced from my property.

There is a road leading to the house but my car tax and fuel tax should cover this. I am not against taxation if it is fair. Cutting this contribution will be an extra insult to parents in this situation.

how true,
in this country, the harder you work the more you are penalised, you are taxed to pay for mine, yet you are also paying for your own child,
you are paying bigger tax, you have to have medical insurance(vhi) you have to pay doctors fees, and fair dues to those who wish to pay twoards their chilfrens education, while not complaining about giving others free education

steddyeddy

Zab wrote: »

Of course they have an advantage if they've been born into a wealthy family, but you're missing the point. You said "The parents of those children who cant put their children in private school shouldnt be paying taxes to give other children an advantage over theirs its obscene", but this ignores the fact that they *aren't* paying taxes to do that, the parents of the private school kid are. They then have to supplement their own taxes.

The whole point of this thread is that the taxpayer (everyone who pays tax) pays tax towards the private schools aswell.

steddyeddy

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Here, here!

And while we're at it, I don't want my taxes going towards ANY service I can't and don't personally use. I've not been sick for a while, and even if I am, I will only use one hospital, so no hospitals other than my local one should get any of my tax money. And I don't use public transport, so no more taxes there either please. I get nothing from overseas aid, the defense forces and a string of other things I am paying taxes for, so no more of my money to them either while we're at it....

Taxes are used for a variety of reasons and we don't always get to avail of the benefits directly. The rich could claim to refuse to want to pay taxes cause they don't want to fund the lifestyles of those on the dole, and the poor claim they don't want to pay taxes to help educate the rich; to educate those who could go on to be our Doctors, our accountants, our lawyers, etc. But that's the society we live in today; we pay taxes to help the country, as a whole, continue to run. We all get some benefit out of it, maybe not in the short term via an obvious route, but definitely in the long run, even if in a more subtle way.

Jesus sorry but what planet are you talking about Im a scientist and I came from a poor background. My friends are doctors (of medicine) and engineers and they came from poor backgrounds. Rich people dont become professionals and scientists because of any inherent intelligence. My point in another post was that private schools make up for lack of academic ability in some cases and manage to send less deserving pupils to college. Thats what I dont like paying taxes for.

It isnt even a point about eqaulity I came from a horrible background and Im doing research that I would never have dreamed of doing. So people from any background can rise to any level but I dont want to give kid a and advantage over kid b all the while kid a's parents are paying for kid b's advantaged education. On the converse side some people made it through to undergraduate level who werent up to the task and a lot of those made up private shcool pupils.

steddyeddy

football_lover wrote: »

If that is the case the parent of children who attend fee paying schools should get a tax rebate for the difference in tax against the contribution of government payments to these schools.

What is the point of paying taxes if people cannot benefit from such a system.

I pay high taxes my self but get very little in return yet some body else can pay smaller payments than me and get free healthcare and lots of services in a city.

I would agree with that but I would also say that in college applications the fact that one kid's ecuation was more advantageous than anothers should be taken into advantage. After all its ultimatly the kid's life that education will benifit the most. A child cant help how much taxes his parents can afford to pay yet it affects him throughout his career.

darlett

steddyeddy wrote: »

The whole point of this thread is that the taxpayer (everyone who pays tax) pays tax towards the private schools aswell.

Do you think that teachers who work in private schools get paid more than those who work in public schools?

If yes, than this is a simple misunderstanding.

If not, then what exactly is the problem with parents who subsidise the wages of teachers that the state would otherwise have to cover in full?


Scenario to consider. State school funding gets cut. Parents are unable to meet the increase in fees needed now to pay teachers wages in full. Private school then closes, and victory is declared over these silver spoon in mouth landed gentry who must be the ones sending their privileged little ****s to the private schools. (A reality check into the students who make up the numbers in these schools would show you they arent a different breed, some are as disadvantaged as any other and only get to cover the fees by things such as church grant aid and limited scholarships)

Of course those students and teachers must be squeezed into the remaining schools, which will maybe have to build on, or rent or buy classrooms. Best case result for the Irish tax payer is that by the time students are sieved into various classes it ll be possible to fire some teachers now deemed to be surplus. Winner Winner Chicken Dinner?