EUR100m a year government funding goes to Private schools

Leftist

According to newstalk.



You have to laugh.

There has been numerous people texting in with the same schtick: my children deserve it. We saved up. We shouldn't be begrudged.

begrudged government handouts... for FEE-paying schools :D

MagicMarker

Thought it'd be a lot more.

Rented Mule

Sounds like a bargain to me.

Zillah

This goes on the teacher's salaries though, right? The school still pays for everything else.

seamus

There was a thread about this a while back.

It was determined that this is actually a bargain, saving the state a few hundred milion per year because it doesn't have to provide facilities for those students.

MagicMarker

TBH, I don't see why these schools are referred to as "private". If they receive public funding then they are not, imo, private. They are simply fee paying.

joydivision

Government pays for stuff shocker .

gozunda

How much is given to state funded 'public' catholic schools?

As far as I am aware that figure includes the Gaelscoile out there and not just the Eton / Hogwarts type institutions that everyone envisions ...

Mr Benevolent

Meh. In other news, the government gives me a few mill a year, I'm not complaining about that!

FatherLen

Leftist wrote: »

the government is spending money on people other than me

fyp

COYW

Complete no brainer this. Private schools save the government a fortune.

Leftist

wow....

I imagine those championing public spending on a resourse for the wealthy, during a time of austerity, are the same people who think people from disadvantaged areas have no excuse and their self proclaimed 'entitlements' should be stripped.

kinda sad. but shows why the country is in such a shocking state.

seamus

Nobody's championing anything. You've posted some rhetoric about wealthy versus disadvantaged and provided absolutely zero content.

Why is this €100m poorly spent?

As I say, this was discussed a few weeks back. If you removed the teacher funding from private schools, not only would you see an exodus of the best teachers out of the public system, but a huge glut of private kids would suddenly be foisted onto the public system as their parents became unable to afford soaring private fees.
This would in the short to medium term increase the dept of education's expenditure by far more than €100m, resulting in a net cost to the state.

Leftist

ah, I follow now. kind of like if we expect proportional tax on corporations, they might leave?

seamus

Leftist wrote: »

ah, I follow now. kind of like if we expect proportional tax on corporations, they might leave?

No, nothing like that whatsoever.

There's a common misconception that the parents who put their children in private schools are the top-tier salary earners like barristers, bankers, politicians, etc. This is true of handful of private schools, but in most cases the private schools are primarily catering to middle-class families who would be unable to afford a massive jump in these fees.

There are about 30,000 students in private education each year, and the cost to the state of providing public education is about €8k per head per annum. It would cost the state nearly a quarter of a billion to educate these students, instead they're getting away with paying less than half of it.
If the state was to pull this funding, private schools would have to raise fees by €3,500 per student to cover costs. In many private schools, this would represent an increase of more than 100% in their fees, which many parents could not afford. Which in turn would require the school to raise fees further to meet a shortfall until you reach an equilibrium where you have a small elite of parents who can afford to pay €8k+ per year to a private school, and the state is footing the bill for the majority of the other students who are now shoehorning themselves into the public schools.

Have you done any research on this at all?

RobbieTheRobber

seamus wrote: »

No, nothing like that whatsoever.

There's a common misconception that the parents who put their children in private schools are the top-tier salary earners like barristers, bankers, politicians, etc. This is true of handful of private schools, but in most cases the private schools are primarily catering to middle-class families who would be unable to afford a massive jump in these fees.

There are about 30,000 students in private education each year, and the cost to the state of providing public education is about €8k per head per annum. It would cost the state nearly a quarter of a billion to educate these students, instead they're getting away with paying less than half of it.
If the state was to pull this funding, private schools would have to raise fees by €3,500 per student to cover costs. In many private schools, this would represent an increase of more than 100% in their fees, which many parents could not afford. Which in turn would require the school to raise fees further to meet a shortfall until you reach an equilibrium where you have a small elite of parents who can afford to pay €8k+ per year to a private school, and the state is footing the bill for the majority of the other students who are now shoehorning themselves into the public schools.

Have you done any research on this at all?

The €3,500 per student is just for teachers wages there are additional costs to the state for fee paying schools

Zab

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The €3,500 per student is just for teachers wages there are additional costs to the state for fee paying schools

Nothing of note, no. There is a tiny amount of capital spending grants but no capitation grants.

steddyeddy

Ah what the feck? Another private schools thread?? Everyone knows starting threads on that is my job :-P

RobbieTheRobber

Zab wrote: »

Nothing of note, no. There is a tiny amount of capital spending grants but no capitation grants.

How much is tiny, €10 million?

Zab

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

How much is tiny, €10 million?

€2.8 million last year, it's been steadily decreasing for the past few years. Obviously it's a reasonable sum of money but it isn't going to change an argument where we're already using rough figures like €3500 per head.

Dodge

COYW wrote: »

Complete no brainer this. Private schools save the government a fortune.

I do love the fact the moderator of the Hockey forum posted this.

griffdaddy

I for one am sick of my tax going towards rugby balls, blazers and elocution lessons.
I got bet around with hurls and fondled by Christian Brothers and it done me no harm.

Bruce7

Leftist wrote: »

ah, I follow now. kind of like if we expect proportional tax on corporations, they might leave?

Yes, kind of like that, well done. Sometimes if you try to grab too much, you end up with less than if you just left things alone.

You'll find logic in a lot of different places. And poetry. And rhetoric.

COYW

seamus wrote: »

There's a common misconception that the parents who put their children in private schools are the top-tier salary earners like barristers, bankers, politicians, etc.

Correct. One man I work with sends his two children to a private school. He decided to invest the money he would have spent on family holidays and such luxuries on education instead. The short term pain is worth the long term gain, in his eyes.

Jo King

seamus wrote: »

No, nothing like that whatsoever.

There's a common misconception that the parents who put their children in private schools are the top-tier salary earners like barristers,

Have you done any research on this at all?

Barristers, in practice, don't earn salaries.

Have you done any research on this at all?

byhookorbycrook

Gaelscoileanna are neither private or feepaying

frozenfrozen

I don't really see where this thread can go from here... fee paying schools are cheaper for the government, and they're not elite.... so there we have it

steddyeddy

Well in fairness people are throwing around this "cheaper for the government thing" but I would rather focus on what is right. Are children being treated equally regarding education?

frozenfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well in fairness people are throwing around this "cheaper for the government thing" but I would rather focus on what is right. Are children being treated equally regarding education?

What about grinds? What about children who's parents bought them nice books, and educational toys? What about those damned children who had a teacher as a parent? How is that fair???

Dyr

Not sure what the issue is, it's a well known fact that perpetuating inequality is worth every cent the govt spends on it.

steddyeddy

frozenfrozen wrote: »

What about grinds? What about children who's parents bought them nice books, and educational toys? What about those damned children who had a teacher as a parent? How is that fair???

You dont see a difference between six years of schooling and the above?

Scortho

frozenfrozen wrote: »

What about grinds? What about children who's parents bought them nice books, and educational toys? What about those damned children who had a teacher as a parent? How is that fair???

Grinds aren't subsidised by the tax payer!

mickdw

Each pupil in a private school costs the state about half what a pupil in a normal school costs. This being the case, I figure the government should try to further build the numbers using private schools.

steddyeddy

By the way I dont see how it would be bad if the fees went up. There are people who cant afforrd the fees at the moment why would it be worse if more people couldn't afford fees?

Dyr

steddyeddy wrote: »

By the way I dont see how it would be bad if the fees went up. There are people who cant afforrd the fees at the moment why would it be worse if more people couldn't afford fees?

Ya really think ruairi quinn would be able to show his face at the blackrock reunion if he actually cut their funding? I mean he'd have to come out and admit that those rumours about him being a socialist are true :eek:

frozenfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

By the way I dont see how it would be bad if the fees went up. There are people who cant afforrd the fees at the moment why would it be worse if more people couldn't afford fees?

Now you're just blatantly trolling so /thread

steddyeddy

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Now you're just blatantly trolling so /thread

Em no I am not I'm point out a level of hypocrisy evident around this issue. I dont see why it would be bad if only the upper middle class could afford it? Many very poor people cannot afford it now and I dont see the supporters of private schools kicking up a fuss about that. According to some people the parents are the major factor anyway so they have faith in their hypothesis and not worry if their kid cant go to private school.

steddyeddy

mickdw wrote: »

Each pupil in a private school costs the state about half what a pupil in a normal school costs. This being the case, I figure the government should try to further build the numbers using private schools.

I dont have a problem with them making all schools egalitarian as long as they widen the gene pool while doing so.

armchair fusilier

seamus wrote: »

There was a thread about this a while back.

It was determined that this is actually a bargain, saving the state a few hundred milion per year because it doesn't have to provide facilities for those students.

Private schools would have to more than double their current fees to maintain their current revenues, which is 227 million euro including the state subsidy. Doubling the fees would of course put private education out of reach of a number of people, but would the cost of accommodating those children into state schools really be greater than the 100 million a year that would be saved by no longer paying that subsidy? I not sure you can say it would with any degree of certainty.

melekalikimaka

the public school chip on shoulder brigade out again??? Its Christmas for god sake, give it a rest

steddyeddy

melekalikimaka wrote: »

the public school chip on shoulder brigade out again??? Its Christmas for god sake, give it a rest

I think this issue would be a lot less divisive If the "chip on the shoulder" thing were dropped. It's not conducive to discussion.

seamus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Em no I am not I'm point out a level of hypocrisy evident around this issue. I dont see why it would be bad if only the upper middle class could afford it? Many very poor people cannot afford it now and I dont see the supporters of private schools kicking up a fuss about that. According to some people the parents are the major factor anyway so they have faith in their hypothesis and not worry if their kid cant go to private school.

Well the tone of the OP is that it's laughable that the government is "subsidising" education for the children of parents who can afford to pay for school.

The reality is that this "subsidy" saves money in the short-term and medium term. If only the truly wealthy could afford private tuition, then the government would have to spend more in order to provide education to those that couldn't.

There's a similar scheme in place for private health insurance - you can claim back tax relief on the premium you pay on your health insurance. The idea being that by providing a small subsidy to the private individual to help them afford health insurance, the government can reduce their overall costs.

This works the same way - by providing a small "leg up" to private students, parents can be convinced to pay for the other half of their childrens' educations and the government saves money.

Afaik, the actual reason they pay this at all has something to do with equality, and every child's entitlement to an education. By paying for teachers, the government meets some constitutional obligation or summat.

FWIW, I went to a private school and the standard of teaching is no better than anywhere else. There were plenty of good teachers and plenty of complete wastes of space.
I have zero interest in sending my own children to private school because I feel that public schools provide a better all-round education (civic & social as well as curricular) than private ones.

CruelCoin

Leftist wrote: »

wow....

I imagine those championing public spending on a resourse for the wealthy, during a time of austerity, are the same people who think people from disadvantaged areas have no excuse and their self proclaimed 'entitlements' should be stripped.

kinda sad. but shows why the country is in such a shocking state.

The government has a duty to provide first and second level education for all students, regardless of their financial status.

That 100m is paid on wages, just the same as the government pays wages for those is public schools.

Parents who choose to voluntarily add on to the basic level provided by the state should be lauded, not begrudged.

Students from fee-paying schools are far more likely to go to college, to start up a business and generally make a success of themselves.

Where do you get off with the idea that "ur paretns rich, no govment funds for u" ?

Dodge

CruelCoin wrote: »

Students from fee-paying schools are far more likely to go to college, to start up a business and generally make a success of themselves.

is that supposed to be an argument for fee paying schools to receive government funding?

I'm ambivalent to the overall argument and can see points on both sides, but surely that fact that you already believe a two-tier education system exists would lead many to think that government money should go to other schools in a bid to raise their college going levels (and use that to "make a success of themselves")?

CruelCoin

Dodge wrote: »

is that supposed to be an argument for fee paying schools to receive government funding?

Yes, why not?

Government investing in people more likely to create jobs and wealth is bad how? I've yet to see one single valid argument to say otherwise.

Dodge

CruelCoin wrote: »

Government investing in people more likely to create jobs and wealth is bad how? I've yet to see one single valid argument to say otherwise.

You have to answer why they're more likely to create jobs and wealth before you can figure out the objections people might have.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

By the way I dont see how it would be bad if the fees went up. There are people who cant afforrd the fees at the moment why would it be worse if more people couldn't afford fees?

It was explained a few posts above yours, go and read it

Idbatterim

EUR100m a year government funding goes to Private schools

WOW & how much do these fee paying parents pay in taxes every year, maybe we should change heading to "FEE paying parents being bled dry to subsidise everybody else..."

steddyeddy

bluewolf wrote: »

It was explained a few posts above yours, go and read it

I did, it gave no moral reason why it would be worse if slightly more people couldn't afford it.

COYW

Dodge wrote: »

You have to answer why they're more likely to create jobs and wealth before you can figure out the objections people might have.

Because a desire to be successful and reach their personal and professional goals in life is instilled in them by their parents and piers? The students see the sacrifices their parents have made to pay extra for their education and they push harder to be successful in the working world?

dotsman

Ah, the annual left wing idiotic thread about fee-paying schools. Rather than type up a common sense response to the OP, I'll just point at a sample of intelligent posts from previous threads...

2010

dotsman wrote: »

Wow, 257 posts in and people are still arguing about this no-brainer (while most of my questions previously posted remain unanswered)

Let's establish a few facts:

• Private schools do not necessarily mean fee-paying. Most schools are private* (typically owned/run by religous orders). The state pays for the staff. However, when it comes to the required extra funds, some schools depend on state funding and voluntary contributions, others have a fixed compulsary amount which the parents must contribute for their child to attend.
• Statistically (aknowledging plenty of individual exceptions), fee-paying schools produce better academic graduates, with much higher attendance, not just at university level, but at the top levels of university (medicine, law, engineering, dentistry etc)
• Statistically, parents of fee-paying students typically earn more than parents of non fee-paying students, therefore pay more tax.
• Statistically, graduates of fee-paying students typically earn more than graduates of non fee-paying students, therefore pay more tax.
• Fee-paying students cost the state less for their education than non fee-paying students.
• If the state didn't fund the teacher's salaries in fee-paying schools, then, due to the massive increase in fees, a lot of students would no longer be able to attend, putting huge pressure on the exisitng non fee-paying system, costing the state a lot more than they would save.

OK, so with that established, let's look at the OP's poll.
"Should state subsidisation of Irish private schools continue?" is a very loaded question. Ultimately, they are not subsidised by the state. In fact it is the other way around, they are subsidised by the parents. Ultimately, to be more accurate, that question should read "Should we raise taxes to spend more taxpayers money to achieve a worse education system?"

To that question, at present, 143 (66.2%) of people have said yes.

There can be no logical reason for this result other than either:

• People were fooled by the OP's loaded question, and voted without independently assessing the issue.
• Begrudgery. The foundation of the bull$hit socialist policies that so often get bandied around (and unfortunatly, all too often, implemented).

* The other types of school are the Vocational (about a quarter) and Community schools (a handful).

2011 (Thread 1)

dotsman wrote: »

This debate comes up the whole time and is always the same BS. Even the phrase "subsidising" pretty much sums up the view-point of those who use it.

Fee-paying schools are NOT "subsidised". The vast majority of schools in this country are private. Teachers across all the various schools types are paid for by the Department of Education.

For public schools (ie community schools), the building, management, general running of the schools are paid for by the taxpayer. For private schools, this is paid for by the school. How do the private schools fund this? Typically, this comes from a mixture of applying for grants, fundraising and the religious order that runs the school. Where does the religious order get the money? By making some of their schools fee-paying.

Thus, you may have a fee-paying christian brothers school and a non-fee paying christian brothers school. Thus, if one is to use the term "subsidising", it is the parents of children in fee paying schools who "subsidise" the children attending the non-fee paying schools.

But, hey, never let common sense get in the way of typical socialist drivel.

2011 (Thread 2)

dotsman wrote: »

That was point was referring to the common misconceptions regarding private schools.

You are in love with the word "subsidised" which is the completely wrong way of looking at this.

Do you consider your security being "subsidised" by the state because they pay for the guards? Do you consider your health "subsidised" by the state because they pay doctors/nurses? Do you see non-fee-paying schools as "subsidised" by the state as the state pays all their teachers as well?

I have shown that fee-paying schools are not "subsidised" any more than a non-fee-paying school. If you can't see that, then you need professional help.

You cannot seem to understand a very simple concept:

• The state pays teachers in all schools.
• Teachers are supplied based on enrolment figures/catchment areas etc, and have nothing to do with fees.
• The state provides limited funds for facilities/structural improvements etc.
• Schools seek extra funding from external sources to compliment the state funding.
• This external funding typically consists of some/all of the following
  - Fundraiser events
  - Charitable donations
  - Funding from the religious order associated with the school (if applicable)
  - Voluntary contributions from parents
  - Involuntary fixed contributions from parents (ie a fee-paying structure)

All students receive the same funding from the state*. In the case of fee-paying schools, parents have chosen to contribute further, on top of the states basic provision, to their child's education. Indeed, a large portion of these fees do not actually get spent on the school in question. Instead, they get channelled by the religious orders into paying for other non-fee-paying schools. Thus, parents of fee-paying school students often end up "subsidising" non-fee-paying students.

*Special needs and students from "disadvantaged" backgrounds actually get more state funding.

2011 (Thread 2)