Private School Funding

golden lane

all children should have the same amount spent on their education by the government.......if parents want to spend more on their own children.....so be it....

steddyeddy

darlett wrote: »

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.

Of course those students and teachers most 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?

I would love if only the rich sent their kids to private schools and so would the academics! It would be actually much easier to take their privilige into account when they were applying for college, thus reducing the benifit of private schools in general.

Zab

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

Yes.

Look, I have no problem with you thinking private schools shouldn't be funded (although I disagree). However, you cannot say that the parents of public schools kids are funding the private schools when very clearly it's the other way around (this, of course, is simplistic because it ignores everybody without kids). This is basic maths and you say you're in engineering so this concept shouldn't as hard for you as you're making out.

bullpost

So you are in favour of cutting SNA's, grants for DEIS schools and grants at third level to some children?

golden lane wrote: »

all children should have the same amount spent on their education by the government.......if parents want to spend more on their own children.....so be it....

Zab

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would love if only the rich sent their kids to private schools and so would the academics! It would be actually much easier to take their privilige into account when they were applying for college, thus reducing the benifit of private schools in general.

Ah. Your true colours are showing.

steddyeddy

Zab wrote: »

Yes.

Look, I have no problem with you thinking private schools shouldn't be funded (although I disagree). However, you cannot say that the parents of public schools kids are funding the private schools when very clearly it's the other way around (this, of course, is simplistic because it ignores everybody without kids). This is basic maths and you say you're in engineering so this concept shouldn't as hard for you as you're making out.

No I said my friend was an engineer. Hes great at maths. Im in biochemsitry so wouldnt need exceptional maths. I get that the better off pay more taxes but I bet the super rich pay most? In that sense maybe it should be only them sending their kids to private schools.

steddyeddy

Zab wrote: »

Ah. Your true colours are showing.

And what are they? Wanting everybody to be at an equal level? By only sending the super rich to private schools you will ultimatly reduce the advantage of private schools as a whole.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would love if only the rich sent their kids to private schools and so would the academics! It would be actually much easier to take their privilige into account when they were applying for college, thus reducing the benifit of private schools in general.

Sorry, but it has to be said......


....benefit.



....privilege.


(I hate doing that, but when someone is ranting about education and trying to talk about excluding some people from the opportunity to achieve excellence (or even basic competence), it just has to be done.)

golden lane

bullpost wrote: »

So you are in favour of cutting SNA's, grants for DEIS schools and grants at third level to some children?

i am in favour of the government balancing it's budget........that is the best present anybody can give the future generations......

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, but it has to be said......


....benefit.



....privilege.


(I hate doing that, but when someone is ranting about education and trying to talk about excluding some people from the opportunity to achieve excellence (or even basic competence), it just has to be done.)

Sorry but I achieved excellence (in my field) and I came from a very bad social enviroment. The only people I want to exclude from college are those not the best suited for it. I think private schools can use advantage to send people of lower academic ability to college. If they need extra teachers to do what I did in college then their not good enough for college.

Zab

steddyeddy wrote: »

No I said my friend was an engineer. Hes great at maths. Im in biochemsitry so wouldnt need exceptional maths. I get that the better off pay more taxes but I bet the super rich pay most? In that sense maybe it should be only them sending their kids to private schools.

Sorry, you said scientific research. I had you mixed up.

They probably pay more taxes on average, yes, but even if we ignore that, private school still costs the state less. So, let's you and I both pay the same taxes, 4k each, and we both send 1 kid to a school, you to a free school and me to a fee school. If your kid costs the state 4.5k and mines costs the state 3.5k, how can you possibly stand behind the statement that you're subsiding my kid's education? (again, this is ignoring people who don't have kids, and also the number of kids)

Zab

steddyeddy wrote: »

And what are they? Wanting everybody to be at an equal level? By only sending the super rich to private schools you will ultimatly reduce the advantage of private schools as a whole.

You now want people born into wealth to be penalized, regardless of which school they go to, just because they're "privileged".

vamos!

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.

Not true of my (State) school,or any I have worked in. We are already sitting 3 to a desk in Home Ec and Science, as the teachers have been persuaded to go above the recommended numbers. I am not an economist and may be missing something but I think cutting state funding would backfire spectacularly. I know there are uber-wealthy parents who will continue to pay for their childs education but there are also average parents stretched to the limit trying to pay school fees as they think it is best for their child. They would have no choice but to send their child to a state school. I know savings have to be made, but Labour seem to be trying to make us all equal but equally worse! Dumb down the J Cert to cater for the disadvantaged, close private schools to cater for the disadvantaged and squeeze the working harder but allow welfare to remain high. Race to the bottom?

vamos!

I haven't read the whole thread, so don't know if it has been mentioned, but quite a few ministers went to private schools. I wonder if their parents could have afforded their education without state funding?

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry but I achieved excellence (in my field) and I came from a very bad social enviroment.

And? You want a medal?

You want to exclude people from access to education, just because you have an issue with some people having money. You are even willing to give them free money in tax rebates just so you can identify them for exclusion. That is sinister politics, to say the least.

You also display a considerable degree of naivety about the motivation of the "Trinners" when they say they want to move away from the openness and transparency of the CAO process. The only direction that will take you is to ensure that the sons and daughters of privilege will be able to perpetuate that privilege - aided and abetted by those of privilege who run the country's higher education institutions.

Policy should not be made on the basis of the prejudices of people with chips on their shoulders - especially people who are hopelessly naive and idealistic.

Geuze

davet82 wrote: »

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?

Note that all primary schools are private.

Note that all second-level schools excl. VEC are private.

They are not provided by the State.

They are financed by the State.

vamos!

vamos! wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread, so don't know if it has been mentioned, but quite a few ministers went to private schools. I wonder if their parents could have afforded their education without state funding?

Eamon Gilmore - Garbally (scholarship)

Ruairi Quinn - St. Michael's and Blackrock College

Richard Bruton - Belvedere and Clongowes

Alan Shatter - High School

Simon Coveney - Clongowes

Leo Varadkar - King's Hospital


I think that's the lot.

flyswatter

Don't remove the funding. To be honest, the parents of children in these schools are paying their taxes just as everyone else is and some (not everyone as some seem to generalise) are paying a lot in the upper tax bracket, keeping the country going.

What makes these schools less entitled to funding?

Geuze

Generally, I'm not a fan of fee-paying schools.

But I don't think that I want the State to provide all primary and second-level education, either.

I don't want what the socialists seem to want, all State provided education. That would mean all children educated by the VEC.

I had reason to meet a few classes of 15-17 year olds.

The VEC kids stood out as distracted, apathethic compared to the "church"-run school kids. The differences were very obvious. That's just my experience.

I don't want the privilege of south Dublin fee-paying schools, but I don't want the State to run schools, either.

Niles

flyswatter wrote: »

Don't remove the funding. To be honest, the parents of children in these schools are paying their taxes just as everyone else is and some (not everyone as some seem to generalise) are paying a lot in the upper tax bracket.

What makes these schools less entitled to funding?

In fairness though the parents have a choice as to whether or not they send their children to these schools.

Maybe this needs to be considered on a school-by-school basis.

flyswatter

Niles wrote: »

In fairness though the parents have a choice as to whether or not they send their children to these schools.

Maybe this needs to be considered on a school-by-school basis.

I don't begrudge them if they want to send them wherever they feel is best for their childs needs.

As said earlier, the fees for private schools would just be extortionate if all funding was removed.

football_lover

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

I have a degree in mathematics and I am raising my children in a philosophy of mathematics other children will not have this advantage. Other children cannot help that but yet that is the situation they find them self's in.

But should a child who's parents pay most of there educational costs not expect some state contribution towards their education other children are getting it.

I also pay taxes like other parents yet I am saving the state money. If I was to send my children to state run schools it will cost the country more money.

How about a tax rebate for the likes of my self so I can then put it towards their education. If the government are going to pull the plug on funding I would want back some of the taxes I pay to fund education in this country.

Can you not see the dilemma that this issue raises. this debate is about popular opinion and the actual facts that are present. Everybody wants this funding cut as they think there child is loosing out and there is an air of Jealousy in the matter as well.

Certain politicians have used this to aggravate a certain negative public opinion with out consideration for the whole subject.

We are talking about a small amount of money paid out by the state. The government should be trying to encourage this so as to lesson the cost of education to the state.

Curly Judge

Mr Joe Bloggs owns two shops, which he bought and built up through hard work and 80 hour weeks.
He employs 5 people, and two part-time helpers.
He and his wife pay, between them, over 100,000 in taxes and other charges each year. He sends his children to a private school, mainly because the local school is crap and the teachers there are allowed to behave in the most irresponsible manner. A principal, who spends most of his time calculating the size of his pension, seems ho have allowed a policy of drift which has now turned into a tsunami.
This behavior seems to be aided and abetted by the teachers union as these teachers seem to be unsackable.
By the way Mrs Bloggs takes great pride in buying a new schoolbag each year lovingly kitted out with the best pens and pencils for her little darlings.
Let us now turn to Mr. Joe Hoggs.
In contrast to Mr Bloggs, Mr Hoggs couldn't give a flying F**k about his children, or their education.
He regards any time not spent in the pub as a complete waste.
He seldom works or contributes to the state coffers.
In fact, he spends most of this life with his hand out for some of Mr Bloggs hard earned taxes.
His children don't get a new bag each year. They were bought a bag at the start of their school career by a sympathetic aunt and it looks as though it will have to fall apart before they get a new one They spend an inordinate amount of time borrowing or stealing pens and rubbers from their fellow pupils.
Let us now put an end to this dreadful situation. Let us stop paying the cost of Mr Bloggs children's teachers and give the money saved in extra social to Mr. Hoggs so he can spend more time down the boozer. Let us also reward Mrs Bloggs for her good citizenship and hard work by banning her from buying fancy school bags for her children in the interest of some socialist nirvana.
No way Jose! Not now! Not ever! Not until Hell freezes over!

Milk & Honey

Curly Judge wrote: »

Mr Joe Bloggs owns two shops, which he bought and built up through hard work and 80 hour weeks.
He employs 5 people, and two part-time helpers.
He and his wife pay, between them, over 100,000 in taxes and other charges each year. He sends his children to a private school, mainly because the local school is crap and the teachers there are allowed to behave in the most irresponsible manner. A principal, who spends most of his time calculating the size of his pension, seems ho have allowed a policy of drift which has now turned into a tsunami.
This behavior seems to be aided and abetted by the teachers union as these teachers seem to be unsackable.
By the way Mrs Bloggs takes great pride in buying a new schoolbag each year lovingly kitted out with the best pens and pencils for her little darlings.
Let us now turn to Mr. Joe Hoggs.
In contrast to Mr Bloggs, Mr Hoggs couldn't give a flying F**k about his children, or their education.
He regards any time not spent in the pub as a complete waste.
He seldom works or contributes to the state coffers.
In fact, he spends most of this life with his hand out for some of Mr Bloggs hard earned taxes.
His children don't get a new bag each year. They were bought a bag at the start of their school career by a sympathetic aunt and it looks as though it will have to fall apart before they get a new one They spend an inordinate amount of time borrowing or stealing pens and rubbers from their fellow pupils.
Let us now put an end to this dreadful situation. Let us stop paying the cost of Mr Bloggs children's teachers and give the money saved in extra social to Mr. Hoggs so he can spend more time down the boozer. Let us also reward Mrs Bloggs for her good citizenship and hard work by banning her from buying fancy school bags for her children in the interest of some socialist nirvana.
No way Jose! Not now! Not ever! Not until Hell freezes over!

Mr. Bloggs would still pay for his children to go to the private school. the money wasted on paying for his children's education could be put into job creation.
Mr hoggs children might have a better chance of breaking the cycle.

AdamD

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well my course (biochemistry and molecular biology) the drop out rate consists of a large amount of private school goers (Im talking about the top 5 private schools. I think that schools can increase probability to enter colleges for sure. A lot of people in college (public and private) think it a right of passage for them to enter college and most only get a 2.1 or even lower as their final degree.

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

Before you claim this for the 400th time in this thread, do you actually have any empirical evidence?

melekalikimaka

this again... it would end up costing the state more, parents pay the same tax as everyone else so are entitled to the subsidy, chip on your shoulder public school brigade need to move on.

steddyeddy

Socialist Nirvana and leftist this and that? My point and sentiment is actually quite right wing. I think the only thing that matters when it comes to college is academic ability not how much money your parents have.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Socialist Nirvana and leftist this and that? My point and sentiment is actually quite right wing. I think the only thing that matters when it comes to college is academic ability not how much money your parents have.

People with money will be able to game the system, no matter how you tweak it.

AdamD wrote: »

Before you claim this for the 400th time in this thread, do you actually have any empirical evidence?

Now THERE'S a question that deserves an answer.

Curly Judge

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Mr. Bloggs would still pay for his children to go to the private school. the money wasted on paying for his children's education could be put into job creation.
Mr hoggs children might have a better chance of breaking the cycle.

Why is the money paid by the state to pay for his teacher wasted?
Provided the money paid per child is the same or less than Mr Hoggs why would you deny it to him?
Are you saying that hard work and social responsibility are to be penalized rather than rewarded?
It's attitudes like that which ensure that the left wing will never be anything but a minority sport in this country. Thankfully!

football_lover

Curly Judge wrote: »

Why is the money paid by the state to pay for his teacher wasted?
Provided the money paid per child is the same or less than Mr Hoggs why would you deny it to him?
Are you saying that hard work and social responsibility are to be penalized rather than rewarded?
It's attitudes like that which ensure that the left wing will never be anything but a minority sport in this country. Thankfully!

I do not mean to go of on a tangent but the left wing are not a minority in Irelan they have controlled the state for many years.

Ireland is a welfare state were people expect the state to help them all of the way. Everything is built around a redistribution of wealth.

This issue is just one small issue they are now trying to close the loop upon. I do not agree with catholic run schools but state run will be even worse.

This economic crisis is perfect for left wing politics as they can blame capitalism every night look at Vincent Browne show.


This private school issue is one of the many that are being used to further there agenda. They are fully aware that the general public do not understand the concept of free market vs central market. And this ignorance allows them to get the crowd rabid.

The term 1% gets used allot as it implies than a small number of people get everything while the 99% get nothing. It is ironic considering that the state takes away the 99%'s wealth. And then people cannot understand why they cannot have private health and education. in the UK working people cannot afford private housing beware this is the direction we are heading in.