nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

IS STATE-SUBSIDISING WEALTHY PRIVATE SCHOOLS NOT OUTRAGEOUS?

magicaljaso

Hi,

Forgive me if this is an old and tired topic of debate. I'm new to the area and am only beginning to try and grapple with the way in which the education system works.

My main query is as per the title. 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?

Why is this not more of an issue? Maybe there has been a public debate about this and I have not been paying attention?

Find more posts tagged with

teachers

education

taxes

teaching

Quick Links

Comments

looksee

gingernut79 wrote: »

I hate to add fuel to this fire, but having read the entire thread you have all missed one major point. Perhaps intentionally, but I think its relevant. religious ethos. Should non-Catholics and non-religious people be made to to the local school regardless of its religious ethos if they have a choice to attend a fee paying school of their choosing? Which sort of brings me round to the whole State vs Church thing but thats somewhat OT.

That argument makes even less sense than the OP's argument. And yes, it is both irrelevant and off topic.

edanto

Damn this thread keeps getting brought around in annoying circles.

I think that state money going towards fee paying schools for salaries is fine, and indeed it would be more unjust not to pay for salaries out of exchequer funds.

If we're agreed that it's OK for parents in a school - any school - to contribute €200 in a voluntary contribution, then why is it not OK for a parent to choose to contribute €2000 in a voluntary contribution, as fees. It's voluntary, because you don't have to send your children to that school.

All the other arguments just crumble against that one.

The fella that was banned earlier, eoghanrua, was saying that

However, since you mention it, there is a situation at the moment where a group in society (a large tranche of tax-payers) is asked to contribute to an educational fund, and are not allowed derive any benefit from it (because they cannot afford the fees for private schools despite their tax paying teachers' salaries). And yes, it is fundamentally inequitable.

and then that other fella powerhouse came along and said

Exactly, so the schools are being subsidised by thousands who will never have the opportunity to set foot in them. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Those are similar points from those two different people, so I'll just address it the once.

You (plural?) are intimating that poorer people in the country are discriminated against by the education system, and in fact are subsidising the education of rich kids. That's rubbish. Spend 2 minutes on this quiz (http://www.ronanlyons.com/2009/07/28/a-little-quiz-on-irelands-income-tax/) and see if your opinions change about who is paying for who.

Fee paying schools are perfectly legitimate way for parents that want to treat their children to what they consider a 'better education'. If you can't afford it, you can apply for a scholarship and some of the people at the fee paying school I was at were on those and I only found out much later in life and frankly it wasn't a big deal.

There are many problems with poorer schools in this country - for instance it's a disgrace that the single most significant prognostic factor in whether or not an Irish child will transfer to college is their postal code - but those are not the fault of fee-paying schools. Those are the responsibility of the Dept of Education.

It seems to me like there are a lot of people on this thread that care a lot about education and that makes me rather pleased, I must say. But I think the anger is mis-directed, and the effort could be better spent. Do Something.

Go volunteer in your local school.

Email this link to every school you can find an email address for and ask them to show it to their staff

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

Rosita

edanto wrote: »

Fee paying schools are perfectly legitimate way for parents that want to treat their children to what they consider a 'better education'. If you can't afford it, you can apply for a scholarship and some of the people at the fee paying school I was at were on those and I only found out much later in life and frankly it wasn't a big deal.

There are many problems with poorer schools in this country - for instance it's a disgrace that the single most significant prognostic factor in whether or not an Irish child will transfer to college is their postal code - but those are not the fault of fee-paying schools. Those are the responsibility of the Dept of Education.

Fee paying schools are perfectly legitimate way for parents that want to treat their children to what they consider a 'better education'.

This is spectacularly missing the point. Nobody that I can recall has said it not legitimate for parents to send their children to fee-paying schools. The only question here is whether the exchequer should be involved.

There are many problems with poorer schools in this country - for instance it's a disgrace that the single most significant prognostic factor in whether or not an Irish child will transfer to college is their postal code - but those are not the fault of fee-paying schools. Those are the responsibility of the Dept of Education.

And this is the product of someone reading too many journalists writing about education. Transferring to college as you call it is a separate matter. There are other ways to define success depending on the circumstances. But none of that justifies the matter of public funding for building and teacher salaries for fee-paying schools.

Rosita

gingernut79 wrote: »

Should non-Catholics and non-religious people be made to to the local school regardless of its religious ethos if they have a choice to attend a fee paying school of their choosing?

This seems inherently self-contradictory - if people have 'a choice to attend
a fee paying school of their choosing' then how can they be 'made to go the local school regardless of its religious ethos'? If they have another choice what's the problem.

edanto

This is spectacularly missing the point. Nobody that I can recall has said it not legitimate for parents to send their children to fee-paying schools. The only question here is whether the exchequer should be involved.

Seems ironic that you would miss my entire third paragraph which addresses that question.

edanto

And this is the product of someone reading too many journalists writing about education. Transferring to college as you call it is a separate matter. There are other ways to define success depending on the circumstances. But none of that justifies the matter of public funding for building and teacher salaries for fee-paying schools.

No, it's the opinion of a guy that works full time (and has for the past four years) in a charity that is specifically focussed on addressing educational disadvantage.

Are you trying to say that it's fair that the state wouldn't pay towards teachers salaries for some students? At what fee level would you set your bar? For instance, if parents give €500 per year per child, should those teachers not receive state salaries? I humbly suggest that if you think through what you're proposing you'll see it's unfair.

Rosita

edanto wrote: »

Seems ironic that you would miss my entire third paragraph which addresses that question.

Your third paragraph featured some silly hair-splitting nonsense about the word 'voluntary' and was irrelevant. No irony in that whatsoever.

Rosita

edanto wrote: »

Are you trying to say that it's fair that the state wouldn't pay towards teachers salaries for some students? At what fee level would you set your bar? For instance, if parents give €500 per year per child, should those teachers not receive state salaries? I humbly suggest that if you think through what you're proposing you'll see it's unfair.

Are you trying to say that it's fair that the state wouldn't pay towards teachers salaries for some students?

Yes - those whose parents can afford to pay for fee-paying schools.

At what fee level would you set your bar? For instance, if parents give €500 per year per child, should those teachers not receive state salaries?

I wouldn't set the bar at all. These fee-paying schools set their own fees.

Incidentally you should check out a case from the newspapers in the last couple of years where a Junior Cert girl was kicked out of a fee-paying school on Dublin's southside a few months before her exams because her parents fell behind with the fees. That might cure you of your pedantry about the word 'voluntary'.

edanto

You're not addressing my points.

edanto

Incidentally you should check out a case from the newspapers in the last couple of years where a Junior Cert girl was kicked out of a fee-paying school on Dublin's southside a few months before her exams because her parents fell behind with the fees. That might cure you of your pedantry about the word 'voluntary'.

I'm not being a pedant about the word voluntary. You're being obtuse. It's a simple fact that parents voluntarily choose to send their children to fee paying schools or not. Hence the fees are a voluntary contribution towards the budget of the school. No getting away from that. Your example of the girl kicked out doesn't hold up, in that case the parents voluntarily agreed to pay the fees and then didn't, so the school withdrew her place. No-one forced the parents to send the girl to that school.

Rosita wrote: »

Are you trying to say that it's fair that the state wouldn't pay towards teachers salaries for some students?

Yes - those whose parents can afford to pay for fee-paying schools.

At what fee level would you set your bar? For instance, if parents give €500 per year per child, should those teachers not receive state salaries?

I wouldn't set the bar at all. These fee-paying schools set their own fees.

Perhaps the way I explained it wasn't clear enough, because it's not been understood.

You are saying that parents who can afford to pay for fee-paying schools should not receive exchequer funding towards that education, and you say that's fair. I say it's unfair.

To test your proposition, I've asked you at what point would you decide to cut off state funding for schools.

If the parents at a school agreed that they would all contribute €50 per year per student, would you cut off state funding for the school? Probably not.

What about €500, or €3000 per year - at what point in your system would you withdraw state funding for schools?

Rosita

edanto wrote: »

I'm not being a pedant about the word voluntary. You're being obtuse. It's a simple fact that parents voluntarily choose to send their children to fee paying schools or not. Hence the fees are a voluntary contribution towards the budget of the school. No getting away from that. Your example of the girl kicked out doesn't hold up, in that case the parents voluntarily agreed to pay the fees and then didn't, so the school withdrew her place. No-one forced the parents to send the girl to that school.

You have undermined your own argument in the last sentence and bound yourself up in your own 'cleverness'.

Not sure if you are being unwittingly obtuse or knowingly mischievous in your abuse of the term 'voluntary contribution' but happily you have clearly clarified the difference between the two in your attempted dismissal of the exmaple of the girl in question. Her parents quickly found out precisely how 'voluntary' the 'contribution' actually was.

A voluntary contribution is just that - the contribution does not affect the place of a child in a school. (If you worked in a school you would not dare try to argue otherwise)

Fee-paying (which you have unilaterally and quite incorrectly tried to redefine as a voluntary contribution) is not voluntary in the sense that most rational people would interpret the term. You are paying for a service and if you don't pay you don't receive it - it is a business transaction. Same as making a 'voluntary contribution' for a loaf of bread in the local shop - it's not like you can take the item and decide whether you want to pay or not. You are not forced to take the bread but you are forced to pay should you decide to do so.

I presume if you were not in debating soc mode you would readily acknowledge the absurdity of the fudge you are attempting.

edanto

OK - I'm sorry for conflating fees and a voluntary contribution. My main point, as you know, is that the decision to send your children to a private school or not is a voluntary decision.

I've said that your system is unjust, can you please defend your proposal to withdraw all state funding from schools where parents pay fees, and show how it is equitable?

Also, can you answer my direct and repeated question about the contribution point at which you would withdraw state funding for schools?

vallo

doc_17 wrote: »

One students private fee would buy a hell of a lot of yet tubes, HCL, Manganese Dioxide etc. Just on the ICT thing.....out school raised the money to kit out our own computer room and put data projectors and laptops in each room. There wasn't much helpmfrom the state for us two years ago when we did it.

How sophisticated do desktop pcs need to be? Moored law doesn't apply ....I wasn't aware we were required to double our computer speed every two years...so no... It doesn't apply.

Of course it applies. ICT equipment has to be updated regularly - you think schools are all running WindowsNT and that computers in schools never get damaged or are subjected to general wear and tear?

doc_17 wrote: »

We are subsidising rich people to send their kids to palaces with other rich kids, swimming pools...paid for rugby and basketball coaches etc..

Anyone I know in fee-paying schools pays extra for those things. And the non-fee-paying school my kids go to has a great pool.

doc_17 wrote: »

Our school recently lost an all Ireland final against a private fee paying school and their school had a paid coach training them and we had a teacher doing the same job as an add on to his day job.

Maybe we are getting to the nub of your irrationality. If say, there was parent in your school who was a qualified sports instructor and volunteered to be a full time coach for your school's team, would that be unfair on other schools you were competing against?

Rosita

edanto wrote: »

OK - I'm sorry for conflating fees and a voluntary contribution. My main point, as you know, is that the decision to send your children to a private school or not is a voluntary decision.

If this is your main point then you are missing the core issue of the discussion which is to do with the appropriateness of the state paying staff costs for private enterprise.

It is a voluntary decision to send your children to any particular school - private or public. Why are you trying to make a distinction? Nobody has questioned this at all.

What is not voluntary is the question of fee-paying in private schools should you decide to send your children there.

edanto

I'm out.

/unsubscribe

doc_17

vallo wrote: »

Maybe we are getting to the nub of your irrationality. If say, there was parent in your school who was a qualified sports instructor and volunteered to be a full time coach for your school's team, would that be unfair on other schools you were competing against?

I'd hardly call it irrationality when someone holds the belief that the state should not be involved in funding private education.

As regards the hypothetical you just raised.....that leaves it down to chance ie there may or may not be someone available...whereas for the prvate schools they can have all the best coahes and facilities because they dont have to pay for their teachers....

Someone here mentioned that their non fee paying school had a pool..that's a pretty rare thing!!!!

Toto Wolfcastle

doc_17 wrote: »

Someone here mentioned that their non fee paying school had a pool..that's a pretty rare thing!!!!

Very rare. I went to a non-fee paying school with a pool and everyone I mentioned it to was hugely surprised.

doc_17

edanto wrote: »

. If you can't afford it, you can apply for a scholarship and some of the people at the fee paying school I was at were on those and I only found out much later in life and frankly it wasn't a big deal.

How many of those scholarships go to disruptive students? Travellers? Weaker students? It's well accepted that private fee paying schools don't have their fair share from these demographics

looksee

doc_17 wrote: »

How many of those scholarships go to disruptive students? Travellers? Weaker students? It's well accepted that private fee paying schools don't have their fair share from these demographics

Rosita

looksee wrote: »

That is one of the reasons why people choose to send their children to fee paying schools. A scholarship implies someone with exceptional skills who will benefit from the presumed better education. This may or may not be 'right' but maybe we should not allow people to spend their money on expensive hotels that poor people cannot access?

Would someone please explain why parents who have paid taxes should not have the same entitlement as everyone else to have basic education paid for for their children?

And why these same parents should not pay EXTRA, if they choose, towards their childrens' education to get the environment they prefer?

That is one of the reasons why people choose to send their children to fee paying schools. A scholarship implies someone with exceptional skills who will benefit from the presumed better education. This may or may not be 'right' but maybe we should not allow people to spend their money on expensive hotels that poor people cannot access?

Of course we should allow people 'o spend their money on expensive hotels that poor people cannot access'. But presumably we woudl object to a proposal which saw the state funding the staff salaries of such hotels.

Would someone please explain why parents who have paid taxes should not have the same entitlement as everyone else to have basic education paid for for their children?

They already do have 'the same entitlement as everyone else to have basic education paid for for their children' - check out the public schools. But private enterprise should not have staff costs paid for by the state. Nobdoy is contesting any parents' right to 'free' education. It has been available for nearly 45 years now.

And why these same parents should not pay EXTRA, if they choose, towards their childrens' education to get the environment they prefer?

They should indeed pay extra if that's what they wish for. Nobody is questioning their right to pay extra. In fact my argument is that they are not paying enough and the state should be left out of it.

The issue here is not the parents or students entitlements but that the ta-payer is not getting the benefit from the provision of private education because the staff salaries still have to be funded - at second-level anyway, at third level private colleges do not need to be propped up by the state.

implausible

doc_17 wrote: »

How many of those scholarships go to disruptive students? Travellers? Weaker students? It's well accepted that private fee paying schools don't have their fair share from these demographics

looksee wrote: »

That is one of the reasons why people choose to send their children to fee paying schools. A scholarship implies someone with exceptional skills who will benefit from the presumed better education.

This may or may not be 'right'

It's not right.

The fact that these schools, whose teachers are funded by the Exchequer, do not take in students with a variety of needs means that there is a disproportionate number of these students in certain public schools, perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage, for which the state picks up the tab.

Pegasusbridge

deemark wrote: »

It's not right.

The fact that these schools, whose teachers are funded by the Exchequer, do not take in students with a variety of needs means that there is a disproportionate number of these students in certain public schools, perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage, for which the state picks up the tab.

It is just plain wrong to state that fee paying schools do not take in students with a variety of needs. As far as I know schools legally have to provide their admissions policy and as such could be held accountable if they did as you claim. This was something that happened in the past but legal changes have been made to prevent it happening now.
Schools that break the law should be punished but that is a different debate

implausible

Pegasusbridge wrote: »

It is just plain wrong to state that fee paying schools do not take in students with a variety of needs. As far as I know schools legally have to provide their admissions policy and as such could be held accountable if they did as you claim. This was something that happened in the past but legal changes have been made to prevent it happening now.
Schools that break the law should be punished but that is a different debate

I fully agree with you; schools that break the law should be punished. Unfortunately, many schools have come up with some very creative ways of getting around these admission policies e.g. suggesting that a child's needs will be better met somewhere else or enforcing a siblings only rule.

Jcarroll07

ALL the goverment is requiered to do is pay the fees of the teachers and nothing else. Like they do in every school.

Inspector Coptoor

It's not outrageous.

it's simply our government paying a certain amount of money per pupil, every pupil, regardless of school and this pays the salaries of the state-paid teachers in the school.

Private schools get extra money from fees and donations from past pupils and that sort of thing.

This money goes to pay for things like an extra subject at senior cycle (this means employing actually privately paid teachers, reducing class sizes down to around 22-24 instead of 28-30 (again by paying more teachers privately, paying for coaches for various extra curricular activities, buses to and from matches on wednesday afternoons, things like that.

There is also ethos and tradition involved and many of these schools have tradition of sending generation after generation to the school.
What is so wrong with this?

I cannot understand the outrage, I really cant.

The thing that does bother me is how it is advantageous to dublin city pupils attending private schools, most of whom end up in UCD or TCD.
While attending a private school, generally in South County Dublin, they're parents pay 5-6k a year in school fees.
Then, when they go third level, they live so close to the chosen alma mater, that they can live at home while there so mum and dad dont have to pay accommodation expenses, whereas John from Mayo goes to school in a "normal" school for 5-6 years, then goes to NUI, Galway and his mum and dad pay 5-6k a year in accommodation/rent expenses.

So, in essence, I actually blame the rainbow government for bringing in free fees as this allowed this to happen. The private school sector exploded after this.

Discuss (and or rip apart)

Powerhouse

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

I actually blame the rainbow government for bringing in free fees as this allowed this to happen. The private school sector exploded after this.

Source please.