ohnonotgmail wrote: » Ray Palmer wrote: » What a muppet, economy of scale applies to everything. You are clueless on funding and resources. Try running a building for 500 pupils and only 100 pupils attending. Economy of scale doesn't apply right? So let me get his straight, you think the small number of private schools are causing public schools to lack pupils? Even if we ignore the bollixology of your ridiculous example this makes no sense. If you want a counter example how about a public school that is already at the limit of pupils in a class. Instead of sending their child to that school (which would require the hiring of an extra pupil for a very small increase in grant funding) the parents send little johnny to a private school. So as well as costing the state less the parents have also saved their local public school an expense.
Ray Palmer wrote: » What a muppet, economy of scale applies to everything. You are clueless on funding and resources. Try running a building for 500 pupils and only 100 pupils attending. Economy of scale doesn't apply right?
Ray Palmer wrote: » Yes it does, building a house costs so much and additional size is cheaper to build after the initial costs. Seriously you all think I am some liberal idiot commie but you lot are proving yourselves to have very poor comprehension and understanding on basic stuff.
Deebles McBeebles wrote: » Economy of scale doesn't apply to the topic of this thread. If it did child number 7 would cost us next to nothing.
punisher5112 wrote: » So basically let yourself onto any land or property and state you are a traveller. You now have the best chance of getting away with whatever you want. Amazing.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » the only word for that is bollix. they get the same grant per pupil as public schools. Economies of scale do not apply to schools.
Ray Palmer wrote: » The reason you are confused is because you think it saves money when it doesn't. It costs public school funding because of economy of scales. It hoovers up funding and make public schools worse off. Less pupils in local schools restricts their access to facilities and teachers. It is going to be stopped but it should have happened sooner. Private school pupils don't really do that much better either anyway
KrustyUCC wrote: » “It is not fair to punish individual Traveller families, who are just trying to survive, for the failures of the State and general society overall.”
BattleCorp wrote: » Why would you shoot yourself in the foot and penalise private schools that are actually saving you money? .
Jasiah Hot Talker wrote: » Why? Anyone sending their child to a private school would pay quite a bit of tax into the public pot. Why shouldn’t their children avail of the tax that’s paid?
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Anyone else waiting on something?
blanch152 wrote: » Private schools cost the taxpayers less money than public schools, yes, but my objection is to them being subsidised at all. I have no issue with someone paying €7k to have their child educated privately, I just don't think the State should contribute in that case. If that means fees going up to €10k or €12k or more, sure some people will stop paying it and revert to the public system, but plenty of them will pay the higher fee, so I don't think the state will be down money. It only costs the State more money if every pupil in a private school subsequently transfers to a public school. I would guesstimate that if as few as 15% of pupils stay in private schools, then the State would be up money by abolishing the existing subsidy.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Really? Thats racist? In that case i'd be a 5th Dan. I abhor that stuff. You?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » You dont have an issue with taking funding away from private schools but in the same post you say that they cost the taxpayers less money than public schools? WTF??
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Ray Palmer wrote: » Who dafuq is George? You talking to me? You are right I made a mistake ment Roger.
Ray Palmer wrote: » Who dafuq is George? You talking to me?
Ray Palmer wrote: » George Basically I am trying to figure out your logic. I am asking you relevant questions to your views. Just because you can't comprehend why and what I am asking says more about you than me. How do you feel about minorities and funding or other people is all relevant as such. Is it just travellers you are racist about? You are racist that is not a question left to be answered. Whether you admit it doesn't make any difference.
blanch152 wrote: » No issue with taking funding away from private schools. It should be done on a phased basis over a number of years so that there isn't a sharp shock with all the pupils suddenly wanting places in overcrowded existing public schools. Private schools do not get the same level of funding from the government. They get paid for the same number of teachers, but they do not get capitation funding and generally are not eligible for most capital funding. If private schools closed overnight, there would be a significant cost to the taxpayer hence my suggestion above of a phased move. P.S. I had children, some of whom were educated publicly, some privately, it depended on their needs and wants.
