Should state subsidisation of Irish private schools continue?

goose2005 · 16-03-2010 10:17PM

Dudess wrote: »

I don't think private schools should get a cent from the state - they are not a necessity.

It's also naive in the case of private schools to believe "if you pay extra for it, it'll be better" - not necessarily true at all. First of all, teachers are the same anywhere - there aren't any extra qualifications required to teach in private schools, secondly, there are plenty of state schools with superb facilities.

But private schools can pay higher salaries, thus they have many people applying for interviews and can headhunt the best teachers.

brianthebard · 16-03-2010 10:21PM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

dotsman wrote: »

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

Private schools are not "subsidised". [...]

With the Private model, parents pay fees to greatly subsidise the public offering,

So are they or aren't they? Your post was just more capitalist, give-me-the-biggest-share-of-pie bull$hit. See what I did there?

goose2005 wrote: »

But private schools can pay higher salaries, thus they have many people applying for interviews and can headhunt the best teachers.

A further example of how private schools construct a two tier model in which the less wealthy are worse off. All the more reason to abolish them or the their govt funding.

philologos · 16-03-2010 10:22PM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

dotsman wrote: »

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.

Actually, I went to one of the 21 CofI ethos listed schools in that article, they received funding from the State for construction projects that took place during my time there and this was common knowledge.

RayM · 16-03-2010 10:28PM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe wealthy people should sell their expensive houses and everyone should live in a three bed semi, thereby all people are equal

No, better still... let wealthy people keep their expensive houses, but force the less well-off to contribute towards their upkeep.

Yes, that's right - my straw-man is bigger than yours.

dotsman · 16-03-2010 11:06PM

Dudess wrote: »

Oh noez - socialist! I'd prefer stealing (if that's what you want to call it) from those with money to stealing from those who don't have money tbh.

But nobody is stealing from those who "don't have money". This whole thread is trying to make out that the "transfer of wealth" is from the less well off to the more well off which is complete bull$hit. Do you not agree, or do you honestly believe that a low/non income earner is contributing more to the system than a high income earner?

Dudess wrote: »

What are they paying for?

What does it matter? They can spend their money any way they like? It's their money! Why would you want to know about it other than the usual begrudgery?

Dudess wrote: »

There are state schools with equally good facilities as private schools.

Agreed. On top of paying for their own children's education, the parents of fee-paying schools, through much higher taxes are also improving the schools for the less well-off.

Dudess wrote: »

Two mentions of run-down private schools on this thread, and a run-down private school in Cork comes to my mind.

Come now, how long since you left school and you're still bitter about Scoil Mhuire girls? The fact of the matter is that, even with $hite facilities (one of the most run down school buildings in the country), on average, a scoil mhuire girl who graduated the same year as you is more likely to be earning more than the average girl from your school. She is more likely to be better educated. She is more likely to be career focused and ambitious. She is less likely to have a criminal record. She is less likely to be welfare-dependant. Does this apply to all scoil mhuire girls? No, just the majority, but what the parents are paying for is to increase the chances for their daughters.

Dudess wrote: »

The only advantage of private schools it seems is smaller classes (and whether that's an advantage or not is subjective), other than that, nowt.

Wrong, the single biggest factor is the standards and the reputation of the school. It's the one biggest thing that can't really be measured and nobody seems to talk about.

The fact is, regardless of fee-paying or not, the best school for a child of average to high academic ability, with ambitious, educated parents is the one with highest concentration of similar students. If said student goes to a "good" school (regardless of fees etc), they will most likely befriend students who are also ambitious and hard-working, and are less likely to fall in with the dreaded "wrong crowd". There were lots of bright kids in my primary school. About a third of my primary school went to private schools. In University, I didn't meet a single one of my primary school mates who didn't go down the road of private education. Yet I couldn't walk through campus without bumping into one of my secondary school classmates.

The senior years of my secondary school were very simple (and this is what the parents are paying for). It wasn't a case of "are you going to college". It was a case of "what course are you going for in college". The level of ambition (and in some cases, rivalry) was ridiculously high and was completely different to the experiences of my friends who went to the local public schools. Of the 120 students in my Leaving Cert year, I can only think of 6 who didn't go on to University. Of the rest of us (and almost 12 years on, I still meet many of them regularly), many are doctors, dentists, teachers, solicitors, engineers, accountants etc. And that's it. That is what the parents are hoping for when they hand over those fees.

desertcircus · 17-03-2010 12:06AM

Thanks for the laughs, all those who described as "socialist" a suggestion that a public subsidy be curtailed.

All joking aside, though...

1. Seriously, ranting about "socialism" is grossly inept straw-man nonsense. This is a considered discussion about the funding model for certain second level schools. If you really, really hate the idea of progressive taxation, then go form an anarcho-libertarian commune and stop reading this thread - it'll only get you wound up.

2. Did someone say that 55 schools were getting €100m a year? By my maths, that's about two million a school (let's not worry overly about the difference), which, assuming 600 pupils per school, means it's about €3,300 per student. So let's do the maths on whether these kids are saving the state money by not being in the state system. At one student per twenty children, that's a hiring budget of nearly seventy K per teacher. Sure, there's other costs in there, but I strongly suspect economies of scale would trim those fairly sharply. In other words, if the subsidy was redirected to state schools, and if EVERY SINGLE FEE-PAYING SCHOOL shut down, the existing system would probably manage. Of course, not all the schools would close, so really it'd work out better than this model.

3. Education for a child isn't the same as a cheeseburger or a bottle of whiskey. It determines to a large extent the life outcomes of the children in question. Parents being able to send their kids to private school indirectly disadvantages every child in a state school; it gives those children an unfair advantage in working towards college, grooms them to grow up as people at the top of the pyramid and encourages the growth of a tight social network which to a large extent persists through life. What percentage of the population are private school graduates? What percentage of High Court judges, senior politicians, investment bankers, senior civil servants are private school graduates? Until you have an alternative explanation for the disparity (which also explains why parents spend a fortune to no apparent effect), we have to conclude the advantage comes from private schools. And the state shouldn't be subsidising a system which tends to make progress in life far easier for those with wealthy or dedicated parents - these are children we're talking about; they all deserve an equal shot.

Rebelheart · 17-03-2010 12:18AM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

desertcircus wrote: »

Thanks for the laughs, all those who described as "socialist" a suggestion that a public subsidy be curtailed.

All joking aside, though...

1. Seriously, ranting about "socialism" is grossly inept straw-man nonsense. This is a considered discussion about the funding model for certain second level schools. If you really, really hate the idea of progressive taxation, then go form an anarcho-libertarian commune and stop reading this thread - it'll only get you wound up.

2. Did someone say that 55 schools were getting €100m a year? By my maths, that's about two million a school (let's not worry overly about the difference), which, assuming 600 pupils per school, means it's about €3,300 per student. So let's do the maths on whether these kids are saving the state money by not being in the state system. At one student per twenty children, that's a hiring budget of nearly seventy K per teacher. Sure, there's other costs in there, but I strongly suspect economies of scale would trim those fairly sharply. In other words, if the subsidy was redirected to state schools, and if EVERY SINGLE FEE-PAYING SCHOOL shut down, the existing system would probably manage. Of course, not all the schools would close, so really it'd work out better than this model.

3. Education for a child isn't the same as a cheeseburger or a bottle of whiskey. It determines to a large extent the life outcomes of the children in question. Parents being able to send their kids to private school indirectly disadvantages every child in a state school; it gives those children an unfair advantage in working towards college, grooms them to grow up as people at the top of the pyramid and encourages the growth of a tight social network which to a large extent persists through life. What percentage of the population are private school graduates? What percentage of High Court judges, senior politicians, investment bankers, senior civil servants are private school graduates? Until you have an alternative explanation for the disparity (which also explains why parents spend a fortune to no apparent effect), we have to conclude the advantage comes from private schools. And the state shouldn't be subsidising a system which tends to make progress in life far easier for those with wealthy or dedicated parents - these are children we're talking about; they all deserve an equal shot.

Post of the thread.

sink · 17-03-2010 12:19AM

desertcircus wrote: »

3. Education for a child isn't the same as a cheeseburger or a bottle of whiskey. It determines to a large extent the life outcomes of the children in question. Parents being able to send their kids to private school indirectly disadvantages every child in a state school; it gives those children an unfair advantage in working towards college, grooms them to grow up as people at the top of the pyramid and encourages the growth of a tight social network which to a large extent persists through life. What percentage of the population are private school graduates? What percentage of High Court judges, senior politicians, investment bankers, senior civil servants are private school graduates? Until you have an alternative explanation for the disparity (which also explains why parents spend a fortune to no apparent effect), we have to conclude the advantage comes from private schools. And the state shouldn't be subsidising a system which tends to make progress in life far easier for those with wealthy or dedicated parents - these are children we're talking about; they all deserve an equal shot.

The reality of the situation is that cutting public funding to private schools isn't going to be the end of private schools. It will just push the farther out of reach of more families, creating an even smaller more powerful elite. Banning private schools won't work either because the mega wealthy can afford to send their children abroad to any school in the world.

Rebelheart · 17-03-2010 12:36AM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

desertcircus wrote: »

Did someone say that 55 schools were getting €100m a year? By my maths, that's about two million a school (let's not worry overly about the difference), which, assuming 600 pupils per school, means it's about €3,300 per student. So let's do the maths on whether these kids are saving the state money by not being in the state system. At one student per twenty children, that's a hiring budget of nearly seventy K per teacher. Sure, there's other costs in there, but I strongly suspect economies of scale would trim those fairly sharply. In other words, if the subsidy was redirected to state schools, and if EVERY SINGLE FEE-PAYING SCHOOL shut down, the existing system would probably manage. Of course, not all the schools would close, so really it'd work out better than this model.

According to The Irish Times in January 2009:

"There are 56* fee-charging second-level schools in the State of which 21 are Protestant, two inter-denominational, one Jewish and the rest Catholic. In all, the State pays the salaries of close to 1,500 teachers in private schools."

*According to The Irish Times on 29 September 2009, which I linked to earlier, there were 55 fee-paying schools in the State so presumably one private school closed between January and September 2009.

dotsman · 17-03-2010 12:39AM

desertcircus wrote: »

Thanks for the laughs, all those who described as "socialist" a suggestion that a public subsidy be curtailed.

I'm glad you are amused. Perhaps you should read up on the concept of socialism. There's some hilarious ones there.

Now just to be clear, are you for or against the current subsidising of less well off children or not?

desertcircus wrote: »

1. Seriously, ranting about "socialism" is grossly inept straw-man nonsense. This is a considered discussion about the funding model for certain second level schools. If you really, really hate the idea of progressive taxation, then go form an anarcho-libertarian commune and stop reading this thread - it'll only get you wound up.

Where's the straw man? That phrase has to be the laziest way to avoid answering some hard truths. I don't mind progressive taxation. I understand it's necessity. However, I am against double taxation. You can't have it both ways. Tax the $hit out of people and then deny them public funding.

desertcircus wrote: »

2. Did someone say that 55 schools were getting €100m a year? By my maths, that's about two million a school (let's not worry overly about the difference), which, assuming 600 pupils per school, means it's about €3,300 per student. So let's do the maths on whether these kids are saving the state money by not being in the state system. At one student per twenty children, that's a hiring budget of nearly seventy K per teacher. Sure, there's other costs in there, but I strongly suspect economies of scale would trim those fairly sharply. In other words, if the subsidy was redirected to state schools, and if EVERY SINGLE FEE-PAYING SCHOOL shut down, the existing system would probably manage. Of course, not all the schools would close, so really it'd work out better than this model.

What I would love to see is the cost per student of public schools. I'd imagine it would be a bit higher. But then again, let's not let the full story get in the way of things.

desertcircus wrote: »

3. Education for a child isn't the same as a cheeseburger or a bottle of whiskey. It determines to a large extent the life outcomes of the children in question. Parents being able to send their kids to private school indirectly disadvantages every child in a state school; it gives those children an unfair advantage in working towards college, grooms them to grow up as people at the top of the pyramid and encourages the growth of a tight social network which to a large extent persists through life. What percentage of the population are private school graduates? What percentage of High Court judges, senior politicians, investment bankers, senior civil servants are private school graduates? Until you have an alternative explanation for the disparity (which also explains why parents spend a fortune to no apparent effect), we have to conclude the advantage comes from private schools. And the state shouldn't be subsidising a system which tends to make progress in life far easier for those with wealthy or dedicated parents - these are children we're talking about; they all deserve an equal shot.

Again, the complete socialist model. If someone, god forbid, succeeds, or is lucky or breaks from the mould in any way, then we must stop that. Maintain the herd at it's most basic common level.

Joey the lips · 17-03-2010 12:41AM

i dont respond to public polls however I agree with "The Zohan"

Rebelheart · 17-03-2010 12:50AM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Hank_Jones wrote: »

I would also like to know about this comment.

P.S. I did say that I went to public school....is that what you are referring to Sherlock?

hehe.;)

Rebelheart · 17-03-2010 12:51AM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Joey the lips wrote: »

I agree with "The Zohan"

Why?

Joey the lips · 17-03-2010 12:56AM

The_Minister wrote: »

My understanding is that they get as much as public schools do, not any more.

They use this money as normal, to provide the basics, then use the fees to improve the facilities at the schools, to make sure the kids get as good an education as possible.

The state should finance each school to a minimum level, and if parents want to pay extra after that, it's their choice.

TheZohan wrote: »

+1

If these private schools didn't exist the State would still end up funding the students and their education.

You ask me

Rebelheart wrote: »

Why?

Above.. thats why. We would ultimatly end up paying there education. This way we are asking them to part fund it.... A bit like a public private partnership

desertcircus · 17-03-2010 12:56AM

Dotsman: socialism is commonly defined as "the ownership of the means of production by the workers", not "refusing to subsidise fee-paying schools by reducing the funds going to state schools.

Second: this denies parents nothing - they're entitled to send their kids to the state school down the road.

Third: double taxation happens all the time (you pay VAT on what you buy with PAYE wages), but ending a subsidy isn't the same as taxation anyway.

Fourth: your reading of the last part is beyond obtuse and makes me wonder if you read the exact opposite to what I wrote. I advocated a policy that maximises every child's opportunity to excel and tries to remove parental funding as a determinant of how far you get in life, and you declare I'm "maintaining the herd". That's just weird. How is it "maintaining the herd" to try to make sure that the people at the top faced as much fair competition as possible on their way up?

Rebelheart · 17-03-2010 01:12AM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

The_Minister wrote: »

They use this money as normal, to provide the basics, then use the fees to improve the facilities at the schools,

The_Minister wrote: »

The 'finest of facilities' are paid for by the fees of the parents.

menoscemo wrote: »

The state pay a certain number of teachers (less per student than in state schools), the secretary and the principal. They do not pay for cleaning maintenance, buildings etc,

It is untrue to imply or claim that fee-paying schools are not subsidised by the state for their building and maintenance projects. From The Irish Times on 20 January 2009:

"New figures show that €99 million was spent on paying teachers’ salaries in the fee-paying sector.

The Department of Education says a further €2.1 million was spent on capital or building works in 17 fee-paying schools in 2008."

That is - and let us be very clear about this - the Irish State gives millions of euro per annum to build and rebuild property on private grounds, property which then belongs to private organisations (usually religious institutions). This is happening at a time when students in public schools across Ireland cannot even get an SNA (Special Needs Assistant) to help them.

When religious institutions are finally removed from involvement in mainstream Irish education, will the Irish state have to pay the market price to buy back school buildings, the construction of which it funded in the first place?

No prizes for guessing who's getting the short straw in this situation.

philologos · 17-03-2010 01:21AM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Rebelheart: There seems to be no plan to completely remove ethos based education from Ireland so I think it's more "if" rather than "when", just plans to reduce the amount of RC faith schools. As for the Church of Ireland, Methodists or any other group, I have no reason to believe that they will be removed in the near future.

Rebelheart · 17-03-2010 01:26AM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Joey the lips wrote: »

We would ultimatly end up paying there education. This way we are asking them to part fund it.... A bit like a public private partnership

Alas, it doesn't work like that. If that €100 million were kept within the state-owned schools to build state-owned schools and invest in human and physical resources under the state's control it would be infinitely more sensible. Instead, under the present system that €100 million is taken out of the state's schools and used to fund and develop schools which are owned by private religious institutions. That is a horridly bad mismanagement of €100 million.

That €100 million would give huge power to the Department of Education to get greater economies of scale from builders and suppliers in terms of lower school construction and technology costs.

Rebelheart · 17-03-2010 01:36AM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Jakkass wrote: »

Rebelheart: There seems to be no plan to completely remove ethos based education from Ireland so I think it's more "if" rather than "when", just plans to reduce the amount of RC faith schools. As for the Church of Ireland, Methodists or any other group, I have no reason to believe that they will be removed in the near future.

I agree, Jakkass, which is why I placed the word 'mainstream' in there. There will most likely be schools run by religious institutions for the foreseeable future. However, whereas they are still 'mainstream' now in terms of numbers, I would be very, very surprised if there is anything like the current degree of support for such schools in the same foreseeable future. There have been an awful number of nails put into their coffin since the early 1990s.

The withdrawal of religious institutions from mainstream education is already happening.

philologos · 17-03-2010 01:41AM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

Rebelheart wrote: »

I agree, Jakkass, which is why I placed the word 'mainstream' in there. There will most likely be schools run by religious institutions for the foreseeable future. However, whereas they are still 'mainstream' now in terms of numbers, I would be very, very surprised if there is anything like the current degree of support for such schools in the same foreseeable future. There have been an awful number of nails put into their coffin since the early 1990s.

The withdrawal of religious institutions from mainstream education is already happening.

O'Keefe's plans are to reduce the number of RC schools to 60%. They will be still in the mainstream, but there will be more alternatives for those who do not wish to have their children go to an RC school.

I don't agree that it is so much a withdrawal, but just a widening of the spectrum.

hooradiation · 17-03-2010 01:44AM

dotsman wrote: »

Again, the complete socialist model. If someone, god forbid, succeeds, or is lucky or breaks from the mould in any way, then we must stop that. Maintain the herd at it's most basic common level.

aww, bless. You think that's an accurate reflection of reality.
You are just so *adorable*

Dudess · 17-03-2010 02:33AM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

dotsman wrote: »

But nobody is stealing from those who "don't have money". This whole thread is trying to make out that the "transfer of wealth" is from the less well off to the more well off which is complete bull$hit. Do you not agree, or do you honestly believe that a low/non income earner is contributing more to the system than a high income earner?

Money that could go towards state schools is being diverted to private schools, which aren't a necessity.

What does it matter? They can spend their money any way they like? It's their money! Why would you want to know about it other than the usual begrudgery?

No, it's definitely not "the usual begrudgery" - that's mostly a myth. I personally don't see the advantage of a school being fee-paying.

Come now, how long since you left school and you're still bitter about Scoil Mhuire girls?

LOL - that chestnut. I fail to see where I said I'm "bitter" towards Scoil Mhuire girls, but decide that if you must.:D (Although they have nicer uniforms to be fair). That school is lacking in facilities, therefore it wasn't a logical choice for me.

ProperDeadly · 17-03-2010 03:19AM

Let's take the scenario where the government decides to completely withdraw funding from private schools, leaving each private school to fund itself completely.

The reality is that the school fees would double. Many parents work extremely hard to be able to afford the 4/5 k that private schools typically charge. If they were forced to pay the 8-10 k ( perhaps double/triple this for when siblings are taken into account), then the simple fact is , that most parents would simply not be able to afford the higher fees, and have to move their children to a state school.

This happening for a few students would be no big deal, but were it to happen country-wide there would be a huge increase in numbers in state schools, more teachers would be needed in these state school, so the government would have to spend money to pay for them . Added to the cost of increasing the size of schools (new extensions, pre-fabs, etc), it really seems pointless, and only seems to be a re-allocation of this €100 million as opposed to saving it.

I have no problem in admitting I went to a private school, and would 100% send my kids to one too. Anybody I know who had a private education feels exactly the same way. I genuinely feel that the overall education (not just Leaving Cert results) is better, and that the oppurtunities afforded to me were far greater than had I been sent to the local state school.

The reality is that parents of private school children pay taxes, so have every right to avail of the government support for private schools.

themont85 · 17-03-2010 03:41AM

desertcircus wrote: »

Thanks for the laughs, all those who described as "socialist" a suggestion that a public subsidy be curtailed.

All joking aside, though...

1. Seriously, ranting about "socialism" is grossly inept straw-man nonsense. This is a considered discussion about the funding model for certain second level schools. If you really, really hate the idea of progressive taxation, then go form an anarcho-libertarian commune and stop reading this thread - it'll only get you wound up.

2. Did someone say that 55 schools were getting €100m a year? By my maths, that's about two million a school (let's not worry overly about the difference), which, assuming 600 pupils per school, means it's about €3,300 per student. So let's do the maths on whether these kids are saving the state money by not being in the state system. At one student per twenty children, that's a hiring budget of nearly seventy K per teacher. Sure, there's other costs in there, but I strongly suspect economies of scale would trim those fairly sharply. In other words, if the subsidy was redirected to state schools, and if EVERY SINGLE FEE-PAYING SCHOOL shut down, the existing system would probably manage. Of course, not all the schools would close, so really it'd work out better than this model.

3. Education for a child isn't the same as a cheeseburger or a bottle of whiskey. It determines to a large extent the life outcomes of the children in question. Parents being able to send their kids to private school indirectly disadvantages every child in a state school; it gives those children an unfair advantage in working towards college, grooms them to grow up as people at the top of the pyramid and encourages the growth of a tight social network which to a large extent persists through life. What percentage of the population are private school graduates? What percentage of High Court judges, senior politicians, investment bankers, senior civil servants are private school graduates? Until you have an alternative explanation for the disparity (which also explains why parents spend a fortune to no apparent effect), we have to conclude the advantage comes from private schools. And the state shouldn't be subsidising a system which tends to make progress in life far easier for those with wealthy or dedicated parents - these are children we're talking about; they all deserve an equal shot.

Your last point is the entire reason that most people who give out about private schools are discrediited.

Whats wrong with doing the best you can or being 'groomed to be top of the pyramid' as you put it? One of the major reasons we have schools that don't do as well is because of this attitude. Why don't non fee paying schools have this do the best you can attitude? For the record I never heard that once in school, neither did most of my friends in similar schools. However, there is an expectancy in south Dublin where most of these schools are to do well, this is why non fee paying schools such as Colaiste Eoin and Iosagain do so well, they don't have a bad attitude to education. Now I'm not saying that people who do trades or choose not to go to college are looked down on, not at all, but there is an expectancy to do as well as you can in school in the classroom and on the sporting pitches. If I went into my guidance councillor and said I want to be a carpenter he had all the info needed. Just don't piss about and not do it properly is the attitude.

Name me a country in the world where there is no private second level education. You cannot get rid off it unless we outlaw it which would be unconstitutional. France have the exact same system as us, as do Australia and many more I'm sure.

As for the financial costs it sounds great with economies of scale (btw you have to add on excessive add ons for supervision which unions such as the ASTI fought for to wages). If your point illustrates anything, it is that the cost of paying teachers is enormous (your figures should be one to eighteen btw that is what is was for the 99m figure). One thing though is that these economies of scale work the same way in the free sector. In fact I would argue that fee paying schools don't exagerate the cost, that is to say there isn't a overspill of uneeded teachers payed by the state. That is because these schools worked of max capacity. They were turning away people multiple times over and still are in some cases. Therefore the state and the school could work the ratio with absolute confidence in the cost. I can say with pretty good confidence that that 99m was the cost of paying teachers in that sector.

There is waste in economies in scale all over public sector wages and education is no different, I would argue that the biggest waste is in capital costs where some school buildings are too big and some too small.

dkin · 17-03-2010 03:55AM

1) First of all private schools do not receive any more money than a public school the only difference is that the 'voluntary' contribution is obligatory. If we are worried about spending too much money why not reduce teachers salaries or at least put them on performance based contracts. Secondly why close/interfere with schools that consistantly produce the best results why not close disadvantaged/underperforming schools and save money that way.

2) Students from certain areas will always have an inherent advantage based on their location for instance students in Muckross School Donnybrook tend to do better than those from Moyross Limerick despite the fact they both went to public schools. There will always also be an inherited genetic advantage that some enjoy just because your parents can afford the fees doesn't make you smart.

3) Family environment is more important than teachers/schooling and pupils that come from a family environment that prizes education are more likely to succed. Generally parents that pay for private education put a premium on education and therefore students are more likely to meet peers from a similar background and a supportive environment develops. This is a good thing but although it tends to be emphasised in private education there is no reason that a similar phenomnean cannot happen in public school.

4) Teachers in private school tend to be no different from those in public school. I think the performance of any given year is largely down to the dominent personalities of those involved. If your child goes to a school were the dominent personalities have a low regard for intellectual endevour he/she will suffer regardless of whether it's a public or private school. I believe many parents send their child to private school in the hope they will not encounter the detremential effects of such people and I believe public schools should have a far stronger system to deal with them.

5) I am a strong believer in streaming education based on performance and I think this is the direction we should go in. Forcing everyone to coexist at the lowest common denominator is unsustainable and harmful especially due to increasing globalisation and the resulting international competition that the current generation will be forced to deal with.

Rebelheart · 17-03-2010 04:31AM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

ProperDeadly wrote: »

Let's take the scenario where the government decides to completely withdraw funding from private schools, leaving each private school to fund itself completely.

The reality is that the school fees would double. Many parents work extremely hard to be able to afford the 4/5 k that private schools typically charge. If they were forced to pay the 8-10 k ( perhaps double/triple this for when siblings are taken into account), then the simple fact is , that most parents would simply not be able to afford the higher fees, and have to move their children to a state school.

The horror, the trauma of it all.

Rebelheart · 17-03-2010 04:38AM

Yes, it is correct to direct this €100 million to private schools every year

ProperDeadly wrote: »

The reality is that parents of private school children pay taxes, so have every right to avail of the government support for private schools.

Unlike those clearly layabout parents who send their children to a state school, of course. How noble of parents who send their children to fee-paying schools now to be, it appears, the only taxpayers in Ireland and thus entitled to have their chosen private education subsidised by the state. :rolleyes:

themont85 · 17-03-2010 01:11PM

Rebelheart wrote: »

The horror, the trauma of it all.

Mature response. This poster was pointing out the extra costs of people moving to the state sector.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Unlike those clearly layabout parents who send their children to a state school, of course. How noble of parents who send their children to fee-paying schools now to be, it appears, the only taxpayers in Ireland and thus entitled to have their chosen private education subsidised by the state. :rolleyes:

They pay taxes just like most, their kids are entitled to free second level education. That they choose not to enter state funded buildings reduces the cost for the state (it does). As long as the free sector has plenty of schools I don't see the problem.

Germany, France and Australia have similar arrangments to us.

themont85 · 17-03-2010 01:21PM

Rebelheart wrote: »

It is untrue to imply or claim that fee-paying schools are not subsidised by the state for their building and maintenance projects. From The Irish Times on 20 January 2009:

"New figures show that €99 million was spent on paying teachers’ salaries in the fee-paying sector.

The Department of Education says a further €2.1 million was spent on capital or building works in 17 fee-paying schools in 2008."

That is - and let us be very clear about this - the Irish State gives millions of euro per annum to build and rebuild property on private grounds, property which then belongs to private organisations (usually religious institutions). This is happening at a time when students in public schools across Ireland cannot even get an SNA (Special Needs Assistant) to help them.

When religious institutions are finally removed from involvement in mainstream Irish education, will the Irish state have to pay the market price to buy back school buildings, the construction of which it funded in the first place?

No prizes for guessing who's getting the short straw in this situation.

I disagree myself with fee paying schools getting this money. My old school and several around it have applied for it in the past. One of the major reasons was that they just couldn't afford to take out massive loans given they actully charged low fees when they applied. In fairness though, it is a drop in the ocean the amount they give every year, very very little. I doubt they still are giving this money given the economic situation.

Most of the schools will simply go into trusts. The church won't be able do anything with these lands as they are mostly help in special zoning by the councils. Btw most pubic schools are owned by religous orders too so technically we are putting nearly all out money into 'private institutions'.

Pherekydes · 17-03-2010 01:32PM

They should continue to fund private schools at taxpayers' expense. In fact, they should increase funding.

That way our private schools will continue to pump out top grade students who can maintain the Status Quo in politics, the economy and the banks.

Otherwise, this great little country might be in danger of becoming a meritocracy and we can't be having that.

Should state subsidisation of Irish private schools continue?

Comments