Should state subsidisation of Irish private schools continue?

Alessandra Jolly Pekinese wrote: »

Ha,your having a laugh.

During my time in a private school we had to do most classes in prefabs while waiting for permanant structures,the place was a kip.No doubt you have never even been on the grounds of a private school and your argument is based on the assumption that the facilties are great.

They are still waiting for government funding and im out of school 4 years.
Tbh I dont know what the fees paid for because if they had been used solely by the school then the building would be finished because they would have paid for it.

They dont pay for the teachers because Im pretty sure the government pays for them.

So I have no idea what the fees cover.

I was in the same school as you I believe from reading the rugby forum. The school I think is going it alone now and is being built at the minute (at least it looks like that from my car) as the Government are a joke at providing funding to both public and private schools from building works.

For the record I disagree with the Government providing millions for new buildings, the major reason that these schools stayed out of free education is that they all had long term building loans in the 60s and needed the money. Many of these schools charged higher fees than normal second level schools to fund this but even still when the free education Act was introduced the Government who hadn't planned for it (read all about Donnagh O'Malley) left a massive funding shortfall. The schools would have got 4 times less than they were getting before and many would have closed. Many schools like Gonzaga thought about going comprhensive but simply couldn't afford to at the time.

Schools like Blackrock, Andrews and CBC have applied for money for building costs, I disagree with this, I don't disagree with paying a minimum ratio of teachers though as per the 100 million cost.

I don't think some people understand how much it costs to run a school outside of the teacher costs. Firstly, the state pay a ratio of teachers which was always a bit less than in state schools, that has been further reduced now since the October 2008 budget. Down to 80 million I believe from this year. So the private schools have to obviousely cover this shortfall which takes a heap of funding, thats before they start cutting even further the ratio and providing extra subjects to make it worthwhile for a parent to send them there. Then there is the capital costs on top of that. Caretakers, Secretarys, cleaning costs, general maintanence, sports coaches and many other things all cost a **** load, that is what a lot of the money goes into. I would guess the religous orders take a few quid from these schools too for their missionary work and the orders in general. Thats where school fees go.

If we abolish this subsidy we will see a few things. More Institue of Education type facilities which cater for the Leaving Cert and will hoover up some of the best teachers from the state, which the IoE already does to a certain extent. We will have a big divide in what teachers earn in each sector, we will see what the TUI think of that if it happens. We would also see more 'elite' type schools, less fee paying schools overall, but more of the English style public schools of which we have very few which compare.

I think it's pretty easy to figure out who went to public school in this thread.

dognextdoor wrote: »

I'm glad we put a higher fence up so you lot couldn't get in, keep the riff raff away from the rugby pitch for as long as possible.

They thought you well there I see, those are some wonderful values.

landsleaving wrote: »

They thought you well there I see, those are some wonderful values.

On the other hand you're public education has served you well.:p

The_Minister wrote: »

On the other hand you're public education has served you well.:p

OH WAIT!!!

I think I see a compromise.

Private schools could stop receiving state funds, however all money spent on private education should be tax free and tax deductible. After all fair is fair, If a parent opts not to send their child to a state funded school they shouldn't have to contribute to the state school system.

Rebelheart wrote: »

In fact, they do not. The Irish state pays for the teachers in fee-paying schools on precisely the same basis as it pays for the teachers in state schools. If a fee-paying school wants to divide a class of, say, 28 students into two classes of 14 students each then it will have to fund the employment of the extra teacher.

If you have details on the taxes given by people who send their children to these schools you probably should at least reference them. Otherwise, don't bother making claims for the alleged "contributions" to the state's revenues of parents who send their children to fee-paying schools.

Meanwhile, I want all my taxes which subsidised companies, tax breaks, tax exemptions, tuition refunds and much, much else back ....

Oh, not forgetting NAMA and other state policies which are designed to keep your property prices artifically high and rip off poorer people who want to buy houses at their real market value - there's a concept.

No they don't pay them on the same basis.

Funding changes could make it tougher to achieve good results for schools across the country in all sorts of circumstances. Budget cuts mean that instead of funding for one teacher for every 18 students, state-run schools now receive funding for one teacher for every 19 students. Fee-paying schools have seen their entitlement cut to one teacher for every 20 students.


Sunday Times Parent Power survey 2010.

They do save the state money though. Under the free education act we are all entitled to free second level. If every single person in the fee pating/private sector went back to the free sector the standards would drop dramitically unless the governemt upped taxes. 8% go to fee paying/private instututions, send them back into the free sector and see what happens. If your argument is well then a good percentage will stay in the private one then their fees will explode in cost and we will have a truely elite system.

Can I ask you these questions.

What is your opinions of the state funding community halls, fitness centres (as some councils are), Dublin bus ect. These are all subsidies yet most of these properties still have to charge fees to get in to survive. Doesn't that put a barrier on what people can use it?

This thread is just more socialist, steal-from-anyone-with-money bull$hit.

Private schools are not "subsidised". The teachers who teach in these schools, as with every other school, are paid for by the Department of Education.

With the Private model, parents pay fees to greatly subsidise the public offering, with the intention of providing a better school environment for their children. These parents, on average are also paying a hell of a lot more tax than the parents of public school goers.

Thus, these parents are not just paying a whole load more to have their children educated, they are also paying to educate other parent's children.

You want to remove public funding for the teachers in Private schools?
Fine, go ahead. But in the interests of being fair, you will also need to fund the public schools in a fair manner. Thus, they receive no funding from ordinary taxes (and the top rate of tax is reduced to reflect this). Instead, parents of public school goers pay a levy to fund all public schools. Parents of private school goers are exempt from this levy, but pay for the entire costs of the education of their child. Thus you have a very fair model (except, of course, the results will be the complete collapse of the public school system, but oh well, you're the one who wanted to rock the boat).