IS STATE-SUBSIDISING WEALTHY PRIVATE SCHOOLS NOT OUTRAGEOUS?

Einhard · 10-02-2011 2:38am

EoghanRua wrote: »

1) So where does this obligation derive from then?

Where does the obligation to pay for any teachers, in any schools derive from? It's a matter of fairness. If someone pays into an educaton fund, then they should be allowed have access to that fund.

2) So you are saying that being unable to afford fees for a fee-paying is irrelavant once you have paid tax? I'm not so sure that all tax-payers are allowed to derive benefit from the funding of private schools but perhaps you'd elaborate. I always assume fees would prevent this, and that the alleged unfairness suggested by the OP was bound up in this reality.

t's actually quite clear what I'm stating: if we operate a system where taxpayers contribute to a general fund for education, then those taxpayers should garner some benefit from the distribution of those funds.

How any individual decides to spend his or her remaining, private monies should be of absolute no benefot to the state.

Incidentally, there are plenty of parents out there who could not be considered well off in any sense of the word, but who scrimped and saved, and denied themselves in order to send their children to private schools. Why shouldn't that be their perogative? Why should the state tell them how to spend their own money?

EoghanRua wrote: »

That's the question which gets at the heart of the apparent unfairness. Should the tax-payer fund enterprises which exclude people on a financial basis and in doing so derive funding from other sources?

The taxpayer includes those who send their kids to private schools. So, yes, people should be allowed to expect some return for their taxes.

EoghanRua · 10-02-2011 2:43am

jimi_t2 wrote: »

1) Just taking the first say... 10 private schools listed in Dublin. I attended one of them and know people in every single other. I've never seen or heard of free Irish Times being distributed. Oh, and I also did work experience in the Irish Times as well and never heard anything of the sort

2) So the notion of subsidised papers for private schools might as well have been pulled out of thin air?

3) Sounds terribly like the pre-qualification process for teachers sitting a hDip to me. I'm sure the private sector has a better method that could be implemented, I was just giving an example as you were being pedantic.

4) So whats the issue? This simply means that the parents of students in such schools are paying for the running and administration of the school instead of the state. Sounds pretty fair to me.

5) And my counter-issue, which I've stated previously, is why should the middle-class citizens of Ireland not fund the running of a number of (mainly religious) schools without recourse to the state? Would you prefer that the state incur the hundreds upon millions of a cost?

1) You would say that wouldn't you! I love the bit about the work experience!

2) Not sure where you pulled it out of but subsidised papers was your notion not mine.

3) Are you saying that the private sector does not have a better method? Then how can/could it possibly get better teachers?

4) The question is not and never has been the running and administration of the school. The question is (you really should read the opening post) payment of teachers' salaries. You keep asking "what's the issue?" That's the issue. That's the only issue. The rest is your invention.

5) But that's the nub of the issued raised by the OP - the middle-class citizens of Ireland DO NOT fund the running of a number of (mainly religious) schools without recourse to the state?

They have significant recourse to the state for teachers' salaries. The question was if this should be the case. Despite the smoke and bluster it raised it is legitimate to ask if these schools want to be in the private sector then why not go the whole hog and have done with it?

It's not a question of what I'd prefer - the state already does incur massive costs (in salaries). That's the whole point - should it?

EoghanRua · 10-02-2011 2:45am

jimi_t2 wrote: »

Sorry, where does it say that the state funds private schools?

Have you not heard of capitation grants then? And because the state pays salaries of teachers the private schools do not have to. That might just about squeeze in under the banner of 'funding' too I would think.

Einhard · 10-02-2011 2:49am

EoghanRua wrote: »

They have significant recourse to the state for teachers' salaries. The question was if this should be the case. Despite the smoke and bluster it raised it is legitimate to ask if these schools want to be in the private sector then why not go the whole hog and have done with it?

They have significant recourse to it, because they contribute significantly to it! I'd have no problem with fully privatising the whole thing- but that would have to mean a tax rebate for those who educate their children privately. What you're suggesting isn't really privatisation, because you'd also hit them for a contribution to the public purse.

EoghanRua · 10-02-2011 2:51am

Einhard wrote: »

Where does the obligation to pay for any teachers, in any schools derive from? It's a matter of fairness. If someone pays into an educaton fund, then they should be allowed have access to that fund.

Governments do not do things because they are fair. They do so because they are legally obliged to do so.

"If someone pays into an educaton fund, then they should be allowed have access to that fund" - again though you seem to contradict yourself you are hitting the nub of the issue raised by the OP. Should private and by definition exclusive educational enterprises be publicly funded.

Should, for example, a private college like the Dublin Business School get public funding and have its teachers' salaries paid as, say, UCD does? Anyone who thinks not cannot credibily sustain an argument regarding similar funding of private second-level schools.

AIR-AUSSIE · 10-02-2011 2:55am

But I pay tax - this tax goes on a variety of things which may or may not affect / benefit me, thats the way tax works. I don't have a right to gain a benefit from a redevelopment plan in mayo when i live in dublin. So why do these people putting their children through private school have the right to this funding?

EoghanRua · 10-02-2011 2:55am

Einhard wrote: »

They have significant recourse to it, because they contribute significantly to it! I'd have no problem with fully privatising the whole thing- but that would have to mean a tax rebate for those who educate their children privately. QUOTE]

A tax rebate? In the same way that tax-payers in Donegal who don't have access to a train service get a tax-rebate? Or people in Kerry get a tax-rebate because they don't get to use the LUAS regularly despite having contributed to its funding?

Or the way those who buy private houses get tax-rebates because they are not using public housing despite having contributed to its funding through their taxes?

At least I'll be heading for the bed with a smile on my face at the thoughts of it all!

Einhard · 10-02-2011 3:07am

EoghanRua wrote: »

Governments do not do things because they are fair. They do so because they are legally obliged to do so.

As you stated, they are not constitutionally obliged to fund public teachers' pay either. The "obligation" as it stands, is equal across the boards.

And governments do not act merely under legal compunction.

"If someone pays into an educaton fund, then they should be allowed have access to that fund" - again though you seem to contradict yourself you are hitting the nub of the issue raised by the OP. Should private and by definition exclusive educational enterprises be publicly funded.

I'm afraid that your comprehension abilities are somewhat inadequate if you can detect a contradiction in what I'm stating.

Teachers' pay should be funded by the fund contributed to by ALL taxpayers, regardless of whether the teacher works in a private or public school.

Do you believe that the government should have the right to tell private citizens how to spend their own money? That is what you're advocating. There's something absurd about having a problem with a citizen paying for capital investment in his child's school, where one wouldn;t have a problem if he spent that money on booze of foreign holidays. Who are you to tell someone else who they should spend their wages?

Should, for example, a private college like the Dublin Business School get public funding and have its teachers' salaries paid as, say, UCD does? Anyone who thinks not cannot credibily sustain an argument regarding similar funding of private second-level schools.

The two situations are not analogous. Private colleges like DBS offer a way around the system governing entry to public institutions, and therefore it would be unfair to fund them publicly. To fund both, whilst maintaining lesser entry standards for one would be fundamentally unfair.

AIR-AUSSIE · 10-02-2011 3:24am

Do you believe that the government should have the right to tell private citizens how to spend their own money?That is what you're advocating.

Where does eoghan state this??

Einhard · 10-02-2011 3:30am

EoghanRua wrote: »

A tax rebate? In the same way that tax-payers in Donegal who don't have access to a train service get a tax-rebate? Or people in Kerry get a tax-rebate because they don't get to use the LUAS regularly despite having contributed to its funding?

Or the way those who buy private houses get tax-rebates because they are not using public housing despite having contributed to its funding through their taxes?

At least I'll be heading for the bed with a smile on my face at the thoughts of it all! . QUOTE]

A tax rebate? In the same way that tax-payers in Donegal who don't have access to a train service get a tax-rebate? Or people in Kerry get a tax-rebate because they don't get to use the LUAS regularly despite having contributed to its funding?

Or the way those who buy private houses get tax-rebates because they are not using public housing despite having contributed to its funding through their taxes?

At least I'll be heading for the bed with a smile on my face at the thoughts of it all!

A return train from Kilkenny to Dublin now costs nearly €40, beyond the scope of many these days. Should those who can therefore afford to pay extra to travel in such style not fund it entirely on their own, without recourse to general taxation? Afterall, basic public infrastructure is provided through the public purse in the form of roads- if some people wish to travel in more style, why shouldn't such a system be entirely privatised? Like private schools, CIE is funded through both private and excheqeur monies, whilst the Luas is run entirely on private fees as far as I'm aware.

Your flawed reply does illustrate my point well however. We have quite generous welfare provisions in this state, paid for, in the main, by those who do not avail of them. I have no problem with such provisions. However, you want to create a situation where those who bear most of the financial burden for the running of the state, and who finance the lives of hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens, should have even less of a recourse to the funds which they contribute to the exchequer. Obviously you believe that fairness should not be applied to those over a certain income level. And you also have no problem on the state interfering in how citizen's spand their money. Such an attitude isn't exactly something I'd smile about.

Einhard · 10-02-2011 3:42am

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

Where does eoghan state this??

At present, one is entitled to spend one's money on anything one wishes as long as it is within the law. Some people spend their discretionary cash on new cars, some on holidays, others on clothes, others still on extensions and improvements to property. And some people decide to invest their extra cash in the schools their children attend. Eoghan is inferring that the former is acceptable, but the latter beyond the Pale. He is stating that you or I shoud be free to spend our wages on anything we wish (within the law), as long as it's not on the schools our children attend.

Sid_Justice · 10-02-2011 3:44am

Surely a more apt way of looking at it would why are parents subsidising schools by paying fees?

Occam · 10-02-2011 3:45am

EoghanRua wrote: »

The Irish Times floods wealthy private schools with free and subsidised newspapers to guarantee future readers

EoghanRua wrote: »

2) Not sure where you pulled it out of but subsidised papers was your notion not mine.

No it was definitly you that pulled it out of thin air ....

:rolleyes:

Einhard · 10-02-2011 3:58am

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Surely a more apt way of looking at it would why are parents subsidising schools by paying fees?

I suppose some people believe there is a certain cachet in attending a private school. I totally disagree, but if people want to spend their spare cash on their childrens' schools, as opposed to holidays or property, why should we penalise them?

jimi_t2 · 10-02-2011 10:44am

EoghanRua wrote: »

1) You would say that wouldn't you! I love the bit about the work experience!

Yeah I would say that as, unlike you, I'm dealing with fact rather than complete fantasy spawned by prejudice. I'm glad you like the bit about work experience; I'm referring to 3rd level work experience and ended up working for them as a temp in one department for a while as well. Unlike you who obviously worked in the department of funny hats.

Feel free to PM me with your department and line manager; I'll be in there at the weekend at some point and would love to be able to confirm your story.

2) Not sure where you pulled it out of but subsidised papers was your notion not mine.

' wrote:

The Irish Times floods wealthy private schools with free and subsidised newspapers to guarantee future readers

Nope, it was your notion and is amongst your first posts on the thread. Troll fail. You could have at least tried to cover your tracks before refuting it :rolleyes:

3) Are you saying that the private sector does not have a better method? Then how can/could it possibly get better teachers?

How in gods name did you come to that conclusion. What I actually said, quoted for posterity, is

' wrote:

I'm sure the private sector has a better method that could be implemented, I was just giving an example as you were being pedantic.

The crux of my argument was that if private schools paid teachers salaries then they could pay what wages they wanted, as a cap would be legally unenforcable, and that they could get the best teachers because of this - leading to an uneven playing field between private/public schools.

4) The question is not and never has been the running and administration of the school. The question is (you really should read the opening post) payment of teachers' salaries. You keep asking "what's the issue?" That's the issue. That's the only issue. The rest is your invention.

I read the OP, and the posts after it, carefully - unlike you. I've explained, repeatedly, why the payment of teachers salaries would create an uneven playing field and you've just chosen to ignore it. I've also explained that, as a result, the fees paid to private schools fund the running of said schools almost wholly - saving the states hundreds of millions a year.

5) But that's the nub of the issued raised by the OP - the middle-class citizens of Ireland DO NOT fund the running of a number of (mainly religious) schools without recourse to the state?

Yes they do. What they don't do is pay the teachers salaries, for the very good reason of the brain-drain scenario outlined repeatedly.

They have significant recourse to the state for teachers' salaries. The question was if this should be the case.

What recourse to the state? They're paying for the teachers by proxy of their taxes. In fact, they are paying more taxes by virtue of a higher gross income. The state undertook to control the asssesment, management and payment of all secondary school teachers for a reason.

Despite the smoke and bluster it raised

Almost entirely from you I might add

it is legitimate to ask if these schools want to be in the private sector then why not go the whole hog and have done with it?

Sure, anything is legitimate to ask. It's a discussion forum. As I've said (for maybe the fifth time now?) you make private schools wholly private and they end up paying their own salaries and poaching the best teachers; creating an ACTUAL class divide.

It's not a question of what I'd prefer - the state already does incur massive costs (in salaries). That's the whole point - should it?

The state incurs massive costs (in salaries) for a wide range of services that people with higher incomes are financially prevented from availing of. Even though they fund the VAST majority of such endeavours. It works both ways.

jimi_t2 · 10-02-2011 10:54am

EoghanRua wrote: »

Should, for example, a private college like the Dublin Business School get public funding and have its teachers' salaries paid as, say, UCD does? Anyone who thinks not cannot credibily sustain an argument regarding similar funding of private second-level schools.

A private 3rd level facility, such as DBS, does not get public funding as it is not accredited by the state, or any subsidiary body derived from it - unlike UCD, almost the entirety of its courses are accredited by professional bodies and universities outside of this country. The reason that it is on the CAO system is to fulfill the requirements of the Bologna Accords.

The parallel you should be drawing is between that of DBS, Portobello and other similar private 3rd level institutions that exist outside the remit of the government with The Institute, Bruce College and the other 2nd level institutions that do so as well.

vallo · 10-02-2011 11:43am

magicaljaso wrote: »

Hi,
Why is there not more discussion about the fact that the State pays out substantial amounts of tax-payers money to pay for teachers and therefore fund smaller classes in wealthy private schools? With all of the qualified teachers currently out of work, surely a more equitable and employment engendering solution would be have the private schools pay for their own teachers and allow the state funded teachers to be employed in public schools?

If all the fee-paying schools closed tomorrow, the cost of educating all those students would fall to the state.
We/the state would have to pay more teachers and support staff to cover the costs of some of the teaching and support staff that are currently paid from fees.
We/the state would also have to pay more teachers' salaries as the teacher/pupil ratio in private schools is lower (state pays for 1 teacher per 19 students in normal schools and 1 per 20 in fee-paying - I think. Can't remember exact figure - but there is a difference of 1).
We/the state would also have to pay for the buildings, repairs, maintenance of the schools etc, grants for science equipment, ICT etc etc - all of these the fee-paying schools cover themselves.
So although it may rankle with some, the truth of the matter is that fee-paying schools save the exchequer money.

PS - please don't use CAPS in thread titles. While you are clearly outraged, you don't have to shout about it!

Rosita · 11-02-2011 12:42am

jimi_t2 wrote: »

A private 3rd level facility, such as DBS, does not get public funding as it is not accredited by the state, or any subsidiary body derived from it - unlike UCD, almost the entirety of its courses are accredited by professional bodies and universities outside of this country. The reason that it is on the CAO system is to fulfill the requirements of the Bologna Accords.

The parallel you should be drawing is between that of DBS, Portobello and other similar private 3rd level institutions that exist outside the remit of the government with The Institute, Bruce College and the other 2nd level institutions that do so as well.

You are completely missing the point. Here's what Eoghan Rua wrote: "Should, for example, a private college like the Dublin Business School get public funding and have its teachers' salaries paid as, say, UCD does?"

It is a very relevant parallel being drawn. Private schools get teachers' salaries paid by the government, which would be the same as private third-level colleges doing likewise. But that doesn't happen as they, as private colleges, are expected to fund themselves. That seems logical enough and it also seems logical that second-level schools would do so.

Nobody is saying the schools should not exist - just that they should fund themselves entirely.

Rosita · 11-02-2011 12:52am

jimi_t2 wrote: »

Feel free to PM me with your department and line manager; I'll be in there at the weekend at some point and would love to be able to confirm your story.

It's a long time since I saw a riposte as juvenile as this. If you track back you'll see that Eoghan never claimed to have worked for any specific newspaper.

I worked in the Times myself until about two years ago and never heard anyone refer to a 'line manager' - at least in the newsroom. We tended to call them editors. Are you sure you're not Walter Mitty? :rolleyes: If you want to get into the brinkmanship yourself, you can give your details to Colm Boland or Kevin O'Sullivan or Peter Murtagh and I'll call them on Monday to confirm your credentials.

And, yes, copies of the paper going to fee-paying schools would have been part of the reality, but so too for the Indo and Examiner. It is of course a completely peripheral point and your attempts to make it central suggests that you have no real core argument in favour of fee-paying schools other than your own determined prejudice.

Rosita · 11-02-2011 12:58am

vallo wrote: »

If all the fee-paying schools closed tomorrow, the cost of educating all those students would fall to the state.
We/the state would have to pay more teachers and support staff to cover the costs of some of the teaching and support staff that are currently paid from fees.
We/the state would also have to pay more teachers' salaries as the teacher/pupil ratio in private schools is lower (state pays for 1 teacher per 19 students in normal schools and 1 per 20 in fee-paying - I think. Can't remember exact figure - but there is a difference of 1).
We/the state would also have to pay for the buildings, repairs, maintenance of the schools etc, grants for science equipment, ICT etc etc - all of these the fee-paying schools cover themselves.
So although it may rankle with some, the truth of the matter is that fee-paying schools save the exchequer money.

PS - please don't use CAPS in thread titles. While you are clearly outraged, you don't have to shout about it!

This is nonsense. The marginal cost of paying for the education of those students probably would not be all that significant. The government is already paying the salaries of their teachers anyway so their would be no extra cost there. As for paying for upkeep of schools and equipment, in reality these students would find themselves in schools with larger classes and without some of the needless extravagance associated with the fee-paying schools. The average state school does not have property portfolios to maintain for private gain, not large tracts of land to farm. I suspect fee-paying schools don't save the exchequer a penny.

Pegasusbridge · 11-02-2011 11:18am

Rosita wrote: »

This is nonsense. The marginal cost of paying for the education of those students probably would not be all that significant. The government is already paying the salaries of their teachers anyway so their would be no extra cost there. As for paying for upkeep of schools and equipment, in reality these students would find themselves in schools with larger classes and without some of the needless extravagance associated with the fee-paying schools. The average state school does not have property portfolios to maintain for private gain, not large tracts of land to farm. I suspect fee-paying schools don't save the exchequer a penny.

You are forgetting about Capitation. The state doesn't pay it for students in fee paying schools. If all fee paying schools closed tomorrow and we accept that all those pupils could be placed in already over crowded classes and reassign all the teachers then the state would still have to pay all that extra Capitation. So there would be a significant extra cost to the State.

vallo · 11-02-2011 4:38pm

Rosita wrote: »

This is nonsense. The marginal cost of paying for the education of those students probably would not be all that significant. The government is already paying the salaries of their teachers anyway so their would be no extra cost there.

Can you read? I explained how it would be an extra cost. There is a difference in the number of teachers paid by the state in fee-paying vs non-fee-paying schools. How can paying for a few additional teachers per private school amount to "no extra cost".

Rosita wrote: »

As for paying for upkeep of schools and equipment, in reality these students would find themselves in schools with larger classes and without some of the needless extravagance associated with the fee-paying schools.

So those schools would automatically be able to absorb all the extra students at no cost .. no need for additional classrooms, lab equipment, sports equipment etc? Sounds like a loaves and fishes trick.

Rosita wrote: »

The average state school does not have property portfolios to maintain for private gain, not large tracts of land to farm.

Does the average fee-paying school? And in what sense are the fees for private gain?

Rosita wrote: »

I suspect fee-paying schools don't save the exchequer a penny.

Well you obviously aren't the type of person who lets the facts get in the way of a good rant. Personally I don't like the idea of fee-paying schools, and I'd be the first to criticise them for other reasons - but not on the basis of being a burden to the tax payer.

Jcarroll07 · 08-03-2011 11:47pm

Rosita wrote: »

This is nonsense. The marginal cost of paying for the education of those students probably would not be all that significant. The government is already paying the salaries of their teachers anyway so their would be no extra cost there. As for paying for upkeep of schools and equipment, in reality these students would find themselves in schools with larger classes and without some of the needless extravagance associated with the fee-paying schools. The average state school does not have property portfolios to maintain for private gain, not large tracts of land to farm. I suspect fee-paying schools don't save the exchequer a penny.

Your very wrong there. Some fee-paying schools have very large farms and in some cases house borders. This is all payed for by the people sending their children there not the state. The only thing the state pay for are the teachers. Every thing else is payed by the school in question. Thus saving the state money.

delta_bravo · 09-03-2011 12:01am

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Your very wrong there. Some fee-paying schools have very large farms and in some cases house borders. This is all payed for by the people sending their children there not the state. The only thing the state pay for are the teachers. Every thing else is payed by the school in question. Thus saving the state money.

How many boarding schools are left in Ireland? I would guess that there are less than 30. Not really a significant saving

rainbowtrout · 09-03-2011 12:12am

vallo wrote: »

Can you read? I explained how it would be an extra cost. There is a difference in the number of teachers paid by the state in fee-paying vs non-fee-paying schools. How can paying for a few additional teachers per private school amount to "no extra cost".

So those schools would automatically be able to absorb all the extra students at no cost .. no need for additional classrooms, lab equipment, sports equipment etc? Sounds like a loaves and fishes trick.

Does the average fee-paying school? And in what sense are the fees for private gain?

Well you obviously aren't the type of person who lets the facts get in the way of a good rant. Personally I don't like the idea of fee-paying schools, and I'd be the first to criticise them for other reasons - but not on the basis of being a burden to the tax payer.

If all the fee paying schools shut down in the morning do you think they would just lump all of those students into existing schools? Of course not, the fee paying schools would just become public schools under the Dept of Education. The facilities and staff would already be there.

Classes would probably become some bit bigger as the fees brought into those schools is used to hire extra teachers privately to offer extra subjects or to keep classes sizes small. All of the privately paid teachers would lose their jobs, the public ones wouldn't for the most part.

A friend of mine works in a fee paying school, she is employed by the Dept of Education. Five teachers were let go in her school last year, all were teachers privately employed by the school. They are the first to go when the school has to save money.

Powerhouse · 09-03-2011 12:33am

People should be aware that Eoghan Rua was banned from Boards (not just this forum) for his contribution on this topic. Somebody with the power to ban people here does not like this issue being raised so be careful with what you say if you intend to keep contributing around here.

floating voter · 09-03-2011 12:47am

The bottom line is that the 1oo million that is spent gets massive results. The fee paying schools work and produce the cream academically which ireland as a country needs. Doctors, dentists, legal, other professionals

If that 100 million was spread out among all the DEIS schools we would not get a similar outcome. The money would be wasted. The vast majority of families and students in vastly deprived areas would still ammount to nothing. Fail ordinary level papers etc

In short money is not the problem, it is the make up of these poor areas that causes academic failure.

spurious · 09-03-2011 7:50am

Powerhouse wrote: »

People should be aware that Eoghan Rua was banned from Boards (not just this forum) for his contribution on this topic. Somebody with the power to ban people here does not like this issue being raised so be careful with what you say if you intend to keep contributing around here.

That isn't the reason he was banned.
People should be aware rules regarding re-registering acounts to avoid bans are quite tight here.

Chuck Stone · 09-03-2011 8:23am

jimi_t2 wrote: »

Even though they [people with higher incomes] fund the VAST majority of such endeavours.

Source?

Powerhouse · 09-03-2011 11:47am

spurious wrote: »

That isn't the reason he was banned.
People should be aware rules regarding re-registering acounts to avoid bans are quite tight here.

The user in question has not tried to re-register and the insinuation that he has is unfortunate and perhaps mischievous.

The timing of his ban means that it could only have been because of this thread, unless of course you are prepared to make explicit an alternative reason.

IS STATE-SUBSIDISING WEALTHY PRIVATE SCHOOLS NOT OUTRAGEOUS?

Comments