Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

'State paid €530m to private schools in last five years'.

245678

Comments

  • #32
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I don't have an issue with state funds going towards private schools in a country where everyone with any particular ethos they wish can run a school and pick and choose their pupils based on whatever criterion they like - why not ability to pay...?

    I believe that should be gotten rid of. It is possible to conceive of faith schools existing without such a block to entry.

    Although I suspect that most Catholics would still go to a Catholic school, as most CofI would go to a CofI school.


  • #33
    gigino
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭gigino


    No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools
    philologos wrote: »
    Although I suspect that most Catholics would still go to a Catholic school, as most CofI would go to a CofI school.
    Is it true that the existing situation is that C of I people, if they wish to go to a school with a protestant ethos, have to pay school fees to go ....while catholics can go to a school with a catholic ethos easy enough without having to pay fees? So the existing situation, and the situation for many years, is that education is relatively free for us catholics and minorities have to pay school fees ?


  • #34
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools
    gigino wrote: »
    Is it true that the existing situation is that C of I people, if they wish to go to a school with a protestant ethos, have to pay school fees to go ....while catholics can go to a school with a catholic ethos easy enough without having to pay fees? So the existing situation, and the situation for many years, is that education is relatively free for us catholics and minorities have to pay school fees ?

    In terms of secondary, but I think that is more an issue in respect to these schools rather than State discrimination. The CofI could get behind more public secondary schools if they wanted to, and there are a handful, but the vast majority are private.

    In terms of primary there are no fees, just like the RCC setup.


  • #35
    gigino
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭gigino


    No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools
    Oh I see, its only at secondary school level that education is relatively free for us catholics and minorities have to pay school fees.( if they want the education to under their own ethos ).


  • #36
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools
    No no no. Minorities don't have to pay fees generally, if the school is public. If the school decides to be private there are fees. There are RCC private schools as well. It's not demarcated on religion but on the type of school it decides to me. Most CofI secondary schools decide to be private for some odd reason. There are a handful of public schools, but this is down to decisions at a school level than at a State level. The State is totally impartial in respect to belief.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    gigino
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭gigino


    No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools
    philologos wrote: »
    Most CofI secondary schools decide to be private for some odd reason.
    wonder why they do not go public so, if it meant their pupils would get a free education instead of having to pay substantial fees for it, just because they wanted an education for protestant second level kids under protestant ethos...while down the road catholics get a free education under catholic ethos.


  • #38
    ItsAWindUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,325 ✭✭✭ItsAWindUp


    It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools
    Why should taxpayer's money go towards these private schools, which turn out little snobs to go around with a superiority complex for the rest of their lives? And at the same time the government consider closing hospitals to cut back on money? What a joke this country is.


  • #39
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    :confused::confused: I was under the impression that the overwhelming majority of schools in Ireland were privately owned (Roman Catholic Church) and fee paying ("voluntary" contributions) ???


  • #40
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools
    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    :confused::confused: I was under the impression that the overwhelming majority of schools in Ireland were privately owned (Roman Catholic Church) and fee paying ("voluntary" contributions) ???

    I think we're roughly defining private and public as follows:
    By private we mean open to those willing to pay.
    By public we mean those open to the public.


  • #41
    gigino
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭gigino


    No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools
    philologos wrote: »
    By private we mean open to those willing to pay.

    or having to pay. I am open to correcting but I think fees in fee paying schools are not voluntary ; if for example in certain areas you want your child to have an education under an ethos not catholic you have to pay school fees ? Some parents may scrape and make sacrifices in order for their kid(s) to be or not to be educated in a certain ethos.
    philologos wrote: »
    By public we mean those open to the public.
    Are not all schools open to the public, but some require fees to be paid ( in order for the school in question to survive / stay open ), while others ( mostly catholic ) schools are paid entirely by the taxpayer?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools
    gigino wrote: »
    Are not all schools open to the public, but some require fees to be paid, while others ( mostly catholic ) schools are paid entirely by the taxpayer?
    A lot of them ask for voluntary contributions. Voluntarys meaning ranging from a note sent home with the child looking for the cheque, to the naming and shaming of families that haven't coughed up, on a publicly accessible website.


  • #43
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    philologos wrote: »
    I think we're roughly defining private and public as follows:
    gigino wrote: »
    Are not all schools open to the public, but some require fees to be paid, while others ( mostly catholic ) schools are paid entirely by the taxpayer?

    Seemingly there is no such thing as either a private school or a public school in Ireland ?

    Theyre just "kinda private" or "sorta public"

    Then again look at the healthcare "system"


  • #44
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools
    It's disgusting considering the conditions the students in Gaelscoil Bharra had to operate in. 15 years in prefabs. And yet we have 530 million to pump into private schools?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLdnoWMDBwI


  • #45
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools
    gigino wrote: »
    or having to pay. I am open to correcting but I think fees in fee paying schools are not voluntary ; if for example in certain areas you want your child to have an education under an ethos not catholic you have to pay school fees ? Some parents may scrape and make sacrifices in order for their kid(s) to be or not to be educated in a certain ethos.

    It isn't based on ethos that a school is private. A school decides to be. There are private RCC schools in Dublin as well. The CofI in particular has decided it should be fee paying, as has the Methodist Wesley College. Presumably because they think they can give a better education this way, only to the detriment of those who can't pay. Personally, I think there should be more CofI public schools.
    gigino wrote: »
    Are not all schools open to the public, but some require fees to be paid ( in order for the school in question to survive / stay open ), while others ( mostly catholic ) schools are paid entirely by the taxpayer?

    Fees aren't for survival, they are generally for extras that the school feels it should require to give its students a better education.


  • #46
    gigino
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭gigino


    No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools
    Nevore wrote: »
    ....a publicly accessible website.
    really ? what schools have such a " publicly accessible website " where parents who cannot afford to pay the thousands of euros of school fees ( in order for their kids to be educated in their own ethos ) are named and shamed ? Sounds almost unbelieveable.


  • #47
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools
    gigino wrote: »
    really ? what schools have such a " publicly accessible website " where parents who cannot afford to pay the thousands of euros of school fees ( in order for their kids to be educated in their own ethos ) are named and shamed ? Sounds almost unbelieveable.
    No, it was a public school, in Meath afair a few years back. They got in a bit of trouble over it. And it wasn't thousands, it was a few hundred.

    I'll try and dig out a link.


  • #48
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools
    Report and discussion (with Ruairí Quinn) about this at the moment on RTÉ 1's This Week. Listen here.


  • #49
    gigino
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭gigino


    No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools
    thanks for that , I was wondering. Are not most "non rcc ethos schoo"l fees thousands of euro a year which they have to charge if they have to survive, while nearly all catholic schools are 100% subsidised by the taxpayer.

    I suppose there are some catholic fee paying schools in the country as well.


  • #50
    dotsman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭dotsman


    No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools
    Dionysus wrote: »
    In fact, it doesn't. For starters, only you are equating the private school system with the fee-paying secondary school system. Nowhere have I done that.
    That was point was referring to the common misconceptions regarding private schools.
    Dionysus wrote: »
    Furthermore, you contend that fee-paying schools are not subsidised by the state, but you haven't shown that. Saying so doesn't make it true. It is clearly the state which is subsidising those parents who wish to avoid sending their children to the state-owned and administered education system. Only in some sectarian John Charles McQuaid mentality where the state "interferes" in the education system dominated by religious orders could this reality be inverted to one where the parents are "subsidising" the state.
    You are in love with the word "subsidised" which is the completely wrong way of looking at this.

    Do you consider your security being "subsidised" by the state because they pay for the guards? Do you consider your health "subsidised" by the state because they pay doctors/nurses? Do you see non-fee-paying schools as "subsidised" by the state as the state pays all their teachers as well?

    I have shown that fee-paying schools are not "subsidised" any more than a non-fee-paying school. If you can't see that, then you need professional help.

    You cannot seem to understand a very simple concept:
    • The state pays teachers in all schools.
    • Teachers are supplied based on enrolment figures/catchment areas etc, and have nothing to do with fees.
    • The state provides limited funds for facilities/structural improvements etc.
    • Schools seek extra funding from external sources to compliment the state funding.
    • This external funding typically consists of some/all of the following
      - Fundraiser events
      - Charitable donations
      - Funding from the religious order associated with the school (if applicable)
      - Voluntary contributions from parents
      - Involuntary fixed contributions from parents (ie a fee-paying structure)

    All students receive the same funding from the state*. In the case of fee-paying schools, parents have chosen to contribute further, on top of the states basic provision, to their child's education. Indeed, a large portion of these fees do not actually get spent on the school in question. Instead, they get channelled by the religious orders into paying for other non-fee-paying schools. Thus, parents of fee-paying school students often end up "subsidising" non-fee-paying students.

    *Special needs and students from "disadvantaged" backgrounds actually get more state funding.


  • #51
    mconigol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    Typical begrudgery from the OP there.

    Anyone in this country who tries to live to a certain standard is branded as having a superiority complex blah blah blah.....

    Groups of people/parents come together all the time to set up schools that are state funded for their children e.g. educate together schools.

    You could make the exact same argument about catholic schools admitting catholic children first.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools
    dotsman wrote: »
    T
    I have shown that fee-paying schools are not "subsidised" any more than a non-fee-paying school. If you can't see that, then you need professional help.

    Why should they be funded equally though? Surely most money should go to where there is most need?


  • #53
    mconigol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    philologos wrote: »
    Why should they be funded equally though? Surely most money should go to where there is most need?

    Depends on what you define as "where there is most need".

    If your're talking about so called disadvantaged areas then it does. These areas typically receive more.


  • #54
    WhiteRussian
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 304 ✭✭WhiteRussian


    No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools
    Daegerty wrote: »
    Why would you bother. Private schools they are just little bubbles for rich kids to grow up in far detached from the real world
    ItsAWindUp wrote: »
    Why should taxpayer's money go towards these private schools, which turn out little snobs to go around with a superiority complex for the rest of their lives? And at the same time the government consider closing hospitals to cut back on money? What a joke this country is.

    You two posters have massive chips on your shoulders so I'm afraid you can offer no educated arguments on the subject.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    It's disgusting considering the conditions the students in Gaelscoil Bharra had to operate in. 15 years in prefabs. And yet we have 530 million to pump into private schools?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLdnoWMDBwI

    Jesus Christ, one specific example and you equate that to private schools should no longer get funding. You are skipping a premise or two before you come to your conclusion that private schools should not receive funding.

    If private schools were denied state-funding they could easily get around it and ask for 'voluntary' contributions from parents. It would be an unofficial agreement amongst the parents that some contribution would be made. So they could still receive state-funding and 'fees' too.

    But really, parents who choose to pay extra fees (on top of their taxes that are going to the school) to a school should not be punished for this decision.


  • #55
    mconigol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    I think a lot of it could be to do with the images the term "private school" conjures up.

    If they re-branded them as "co-operative schools" or something like that then that might help their image.


  • #56
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools
    philologos wrote: »
    Why should they be funded equally though? Surely most money should go to where there is most need?

    I really can't see the issue here...every child gets X amount towards their education in non-state establishments; in some schools there is little to no further contribution from parents but in most there is - ranging from a couple of hundred a year to several thousand.

    I seem to remember you arguing that faith schools that are legally allowed, and often do, have discriminatory polices should be allowed to exist and should be entitled to public funding - I find it extraordinarily hypocritical that you don't think other kinds of educational establishment that are guilty of nothing more than doing the same, should not.

    Either public funds are for education of the general public - secular, non-fee paying, truly "state" schools - or there is a system in place such as the status quo where semi-private educational establishments who wish to pick and choose students are entitled to do so and still receive some level of public funding...


  • #57
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I really can't see the issue here...every child gets X amount towards their education in non-state establishments; in some schools there is little to no further contribution from parents but in most there is - ranging from a couple of hundred a year to several thousand.

    Some schools deserve more. Some schools deserve less. Building projects in schools which are still in prefabs deserve construction funds, not private schools which are building another discretionary structure onto the school.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I seem to remember you arguing that faith schools that are legally allowed, and often do, have discriminatory polices should be allowed to exist and should be entitled to public funding - I find it extraordinarily hypocritical that you don't think other kinds of educational establishment that are guilty of nothing more than doing the same, should not.

    When? - I don't agree with entry requirements other than first come first served.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Either public funds are for education of the general public - secular, non-fee paying, truly "state" schools - or there is a system in place such as the status quo where semi-private educational establishments who wish to pick and choose students are entitled to do so and still receive some level of public funding...

    See above. One can have faith schools with a first come first served entry. That's not that problematic. I think you may have misinterpreted a lot of what I have said previously if this is your interpretation.


  • #58
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools
    WhiteRussian wrote: »
    Jesus Christ, one specific example and you equate that to private schools should no longer get funding. You are skipping a premise or two before you come to your conclusion that private schools should not receive funding.

    I'm pointing out that while these well equipped schools receive funding, the likes of Gaelscoil Bharra have spent 15 years in roach infested, leaking prefabs. Cop the **** on.


  • #59
    dotsman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭dotsman


    No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools
    philologos wrote: »
    Why should they be funded equally though? Surely most money should go to where there is most need?
    Why is it that socialists only ever demand "equality" when they are more equal than others, but demand preferential treatment whenever they have nothing to gain from equality.


  • #60
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools
    dotsman wrote: »
    Why is it that socialists only ever demand "equality" when they are more equal than others, but demand preferential treatment whenever they have nothing to gain from equality.

    I think one of the main aims of most socialists would be to reduce income inequality within the society at large which is what the Gini index claims to do. Ireland does quite well in comparison to the USA for example. Naturally welfare states such as Sweden outperform us due to the fact that they have higher rates of taxation and a more even means of distribution to those who need it the most.

    I think a lot of the thinking in relation to education is about how can we ensure that everyone gets a good education rather than just a select few. Perhaps one could call it the Gini index in terms of educational equality rather than income equality. To achieve educational equality one would have to distribute most of the funding to those schools which need it the most, and the least to those who need it least. Much in the same way as the wealthy being taxed the most so that the poorest might be able to benefit from it in terms of welfare payments and get-back-to-work programmes etc.

    I don't think I would call myself a socialist, but I am supportive of the Scandinavian type welfare system. I think that most of the aspirations of socialists are actually very moral even if they are unworkable in most situations. Unless you are claiming that the wealthiest should by virtue of their money be open to more opportunities?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    mconigol wrote: »
    Typical begrudgery from the OP there.

    Anyone in this country who tries to live to a certain standard is branded as having a superiority complex blah blah blah.....

    Groups of people/parents come together all the time to set up schools that are state funded for their children e.g. educate together schools.

    You could make the exact same argument about catholic schools admitting catholic children first.

    So a child who's being sent to a private school is "trying to live to a certain standard" unlike a child who's going to a run down public school.:confused:

    Truth is that in this country your parents wealth is the major factor in how you'll get on in life. We should have an equitable education system for all children. Who knows, we might not have found ourselves financially ruined if we had broken up the ascendancy of the old boys club that run/ruin this country


Advertisement