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

Dudess · 03-01-2012 09:58PM

Would rather send a kid to a good state school than a private school. Private schools vary in their quality. A teacher is a teacher.

03-01-2012 10:00PM

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

gcgirl wrote: »

So your saying Willow park gets no funding ?
Well then wtf does the senior end(blackrock)of things get state funding ?

I don't understand the second part of your question. But willow park primary school would not receive any state funding.

gcgirl · 03-01-2012 10:04PM

whoopsadaisydoodles wrote: »

gcgirl wrote: »

So your saying Willow park gets no funding ?
Well then wtf does the senior end(blackrock)of things get state funding ?

I don't understand the second part of your question. But willow park primary school would not receive any state funding.

All I saying is no fee paying school should be funded regardless of primary/secondary and the department should really fund non fee paying state schools

03-01-2012 10:19PM

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

gcgirl wrote: »

All I saying is no fee paying school should be funded regardless of primary/secondary and the department should really fund non fee paying state schools

I'm not really going to enter into a debate on the subject but I'll just post this.

Each and every secondary school student in the country gets an equal amount of funding towards their education. Some parents choose to supplement this government fee to send their children to a "private" school.

Despite the stereotype often thrown about, not all children in private schools have elitist parents who have mountains of money to throw around. Let's face it, a baby in creche costs a hell of a lot of more than a kid in a fee paying school. Any parents I know that have kids in private schools work very very hard to come up with the money to pay the fees.

So, what happens when the government stops subsidising private secondary schools? Well the parents who can not afford the higher fees will move their children to state schools. The state will now have to build more classrooms to accommodate this influx, thereby costing the taxpayer more money or worse, lowering the education standards further.

As I already mentioned, Primary schools receive no state funding, none. So when the government remove secondary subsidies, not only will they have the influx into secondary schools, but all the kids who are only in private primary schools in order to get them into private secondary schools (which they can no longer afford) will also be moved back into the state system, also either costing the tax payer more money or else, again, lowering the standard of education.

It's not as simple as people like to believe it is.

hmmm · 03-01-2012 10:25PM

More begrudgery. If you try to get ahead in this society and give your kids a good start in life, you've a queue lining up to drag you down to their level. Private schools don't get any more money than state schools, and often much less - but apparently those kids and their parents need to be punished for not being part of a state system run for the benefit of the teaching unions.

Most of the "disadvantaged" areas in the country (i.e. those areas full of wasters who've never worked a day in their life) are full of libraries, swimming pools and fancy schools, while the middle class areas of those who work for a living are empty.

gcgirl · 03-01-2012 10:30PM

whoopsadaisydoodles wrote: »

gcgirl wrote: »

All I saying is no fee paying school should be funded regardless of primary/secondary and the department should really fund non fee paying state schools

I'm not really going to enter into a debate on the subject but I'll just post this.

Each and every secondary school student in the country gets an equal amount of funding towards their education. Some parents choose to supplement this government fee to send their children to a "private" school.

Despite the stereotype often thrown about, not all children in private schools have elitist parents who have mountains of money to throw around. Let's face it, a baby in creche costs a hell of a lot of more than a kid in a fee paying school. Any parents I know that have kids in private schools work very very hard to come up with the money to pay the fees.

So, what happens when the government stops subsidising private secondary schools? Well the parents who can not afford the higher fees will move their children to state schools. The state will now have to build more classrooms to accommodate this influx, thereby costing the taxpayer more money or worse, lowering the education standards further.

As I already mentioned, Primary schools receive no state funding, none. So when the government remove secondary subsidies, not only will they have the influx into secondary schools, but all the kids who are only in private primary schools in order to get them into private secondary schools (which they can no longer afford) will also be moved back into the state system, also either costing the tax payer more money or else, again, lowering the standard of education.

It's not as simple as people like to believe it is.

There is nothing wrong with non fee paying schools in the first place so why don't they send them there ? Because they think these schools are beneath them that's what it comes down to, elitism just like the college fees I think if your patents are able to pay your school fees let them pay your college fees too

03-01-2012 10:38PM

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

gcgirl wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with non fee paying schools in the first place

well then what's the problem

hmmm · 03-01-2012 10:41PM

gcgirl wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with non fee paying schools in the first place so why don't they send them there ? Because they think these schools are beneath them that's what it comes down to, elitism just like the college fees I think if your patents are able to pay your school fees let them pay your college fees too

What are these parents paying tax for then? Is tax purely about redistributing money from families who decide to pay extra for their kids education and giving it to those who don't? You're a begrudger, and you're trying to justify it by insinuating that someone who wants to see their kids receive the best education they can is simply a snob.

gcgirl · 03-01-2012 10:42PM

whoopsadaisydoodles wrote: »

gcgirl wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with non fee paying schools in the first place

well then what's the problem

The lack of funding

3 schools in Wicklow Town need permanent homes
Go figure

03-01-2012 10:45PM

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

gcgirl wrote: »

The lack of funding
3 schools in Wicklow Town need permanent homes
Go figure

And they should be given funding, of course they should, but removing the subsidies given to fee paying secondary schools absolutely will not rectify that issue, it simply won't. In fact it will make the issue worse.

Yahew · 03-01-2012 10:47PM

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

The term "middle class" here is as amorphous as ever. I am middle class and went to a non-fee paying school, there was no way my middle class parents could afford 5K a year for 3 kids in school at the same time, after tax. The beneficiaries of these schools are upper-middle to upper class.

The real problem with private schools is that they make a mockery of every supposed equality legislation. Other schools, used to picking people because their parents or siblings went, have been told that is discriminatory (see the school in Clonmel).

Meanwhile that can continue in private schools and even if the law changed to allow in poorer students with no links to the school those students couldn't afford it. As it stands they don't have to take in travellers, or immigrants etc. The writ of the equality legislation doesn't apply to the very top of society. Equality is for the little people.

Anyway they are all religious schools. Although I think there is the usual hypercritical disconnect between what the upper classes thinks applies to us, and to them, if we are to welcome secular schools to oppose discrimination, and to encourage integration we might as well go the whole hog and remove the private schools, to oppose discrimination, and to encourage integration of the middle classes with the rich.

gcgirl · 03-01-2012 10:47PM

whoopsadaisydoodles wrote: »

gcgirl wrote: »

The lack of funding
3 schools in Wicklow Town need permanent homes
Go figure

And they should be given funding, of course they should, but removing the subsidies given to fee paying secondary schools absolutely will not rectify that issue, it simply won't. In fact it will make the issue worse.

That's sounds like the excuse the government have for paying junior bondholders

03-01-2012 10:49PM

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

gcgirl wrote: »

That's sounds like the excuse the government have for paying junior bondholders

:pac:

gcgirl · 03-01-2012 10:50PM

hmmm wrote: »

gcgirl wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with non fee paying schools in the first place so why don't they send them there ? Because they think these schools are beneath them that's what it comes down to, elitism just like the college fees I think if your patents are able to pay your school fees let them pay your college fees too

What are these parents paying tax for then? Is tax purely about redistributing money from families who decide to pay extra for their kids education and giving it to those who don't? You're a begrudger, and you're trying to justify it by insinuating that someone who wants to see their kids receive the best education they can is simply a snob.

Just keep telling yourself that you might start to believe it

gcgirl · 03-01-2012 10:52PM

Yahew wrote: »

The term "middle class" here is as amorphous as ever. I am middle class and went to a non-fee paying school, there was no way my middle class parents could afford 5K a year for 3 kids in school at the same time, after tax. The beneficiaries of these schools are upper-middle to upper class.

The real problem with private schools is that they make a mockery of every supposed equality legislation. Other schools, used to picking people because their parents or siblings went, have been told that is discriminatory (see the school in Clonmel).

Meanwhile that can continue in private schools and even if the law changed to allow in poorer students with no links to the school those students couldn't afford it. As it stands they don't have to take in travellers, or immigrants etc. The writ of the equality legislation doesn't apply to the very top of society. Equality is for the little people.

Anyway they are all religious schools. Although I think there is the usual hypercritical disconnect between what the upper classes thinks applies to us, and to them, if we are to welcome secular schools to oppose discrimination, and to encourage integration we might as well go the whole hog and remove the private schools, to oppose discrimination, and to encourage integration of the middle classes with the rich.

Plus a million

Chuck Stone · 03-01-2012 11:08PM

hmmm wrote: »

More begrudgery. If you try to get ahead in this society and give your kids a good start in life, you've a queue lining up to drag you down to their level.

Weak argument. Questioning privilege is what it is.

Private schools don't get any more money than state schools, and often much less - but apparently those kids and their parents need to be punished for not being part of a state system run for the benefit of the teaching unions.

Get your terminology right. They are not private schools. They are not funded privately. They are fee-paying schools that are heavily subsidized by the state. If they were private schools then only the very rich would be able to send their kids.

Most of the "disadvantaged" areas in the country (i.e. those areas full of wasters who've never worked a day in their life) are full of libraries, swimming pools and fancy schools, while the middle class areas of those who work for a living are empty.

Such horrible prejudice.

First, I question how factual your assertion is. Second, even if it were true those facilities are open for everyone and I daresay that it's used as much by the middle classes if not more than the disadvantaged. Thirdly, if true, it's probably easier to locate libraries and swimming pools in areas due to them being controlled by L.A.'s

hmmm · 03-01-2012 11:20PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Get your terminology right. They are not private schools. They are not funded privately. They are fee-paying schools that are heavily subsidized by the state.

I'm unsure if that's supposed to be a point of some description. Whether kids go to a private, fee paying, or public school, they all receive a subvention from the government. There are no cost savings to be made here.

Such horrible prejudice.

It's not prejudice, it's fact. As an example, the state is spending a billion "regenerating" parts of Limerick - that's a billion being spent on a community who are largely unemployed and have destroyed their own free properties once already. Meanwhile the middle class areas of the city are having libraries, parks & playing fields closed.

But remember, middle class people are bad people for wanting their kids to get ahead in life. They need to be taken down, who do they think they are?

gcgirl · 03-01-2012 11:25PM

hmmm wrote: »

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Get your terminology right. They are not private schools. They are not funded privately. They are fee-paying schools that are heavily subsidized by the state.

I'm unsure if that's supposed to be a point of some description. Whether kids go to a private, fee paying, or public school, they all receive a subvention from the government. There are no cost savings to be made here.

Such horrible prejudice.

It's not prejudice, it's fact. As an example, the state is spending a billion "regenerating" parts of Limerick - that's a billion being spent on a community who are largely unemployed and have destroyed their own free properties once already. Meanwhile the middle class areas of the city are having libraries, parks & playing fields closed.

But remember, middle class people are bad people for wanting their kids to get ahead in life. They need to be taken down, who do they think they are?

So what's wrong with trying to educate the masses ? Keith Earls is from Moyross, education is the way to go and people won't have to depend on the state then!

Yahew · 03-01-2012 11:25PM

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

hmmm wrote: »

I'm unsure if that's supposed to be a point of some description. Whether kids go to a private, fee paying, or public school, they all receive a subvention from the government. There are no cost savings to be made here.

It's not prejudice, it's fact. As an example, the state is spending a billion "regenerating" parts of Limerick - that's a billion being spent on a community who are largely unemployed and have destroyed their own free properties once already. Meanwhile the middle class areas of the city are having libraries, parks & playing fields closed.

But remember, middle class people are bad people for wanting their kids to get ahead in life. They need to be taken down, who do they think they are?

I think you have the illusion that middle class people go to Belvedere etc., you are wrong. It is the top 6% who go to fee paying schools. This isn't only about money, but how those schools clearly discriminate based on where your parents, and siblings to school, keeping a closed shop closed.

washman3 · 03-01-2012 11:26PM

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

hmmm wrote: »

Most of the "disadvantaged" areas in the country (i.e. those areas full of wasters who've never worked a day in their life) are full of libraries, swimming pools and fancy schools, while the middle class areas of those who work for a living are empty.

Yes the disadvantaged areas.!! that were designed by engineers,en hoc with developers,en hoc with land speculators,all in hoc with TDs in the areas, all in turn the product of what?? you've guessed it the private school..

your attitude is yet again an example of where this country has arrived at:

im ok Jack, f**k everyone else.

Yahew · 03-01-2012 11:27PM

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

washman3 wrote: »

Yes the disadvantaged areas.!! that were designed by engineers,en hoc with developers,en hoc with land speculators,all in hoc with TDs in the areas, all in turn the product of what?? you've guessed it the private school..

your attitude is yet again an example of where this country has arrived at:

im ok Jack, f**k everyone else.

Hmm, I am not sure that is true. Bankers, lawyers, judges etc. Probably not so much property devs, or TDs

gcgirl · 03-01-2012 11:33PM

Tds the dynasties would be fee paying schools , the Lenihans , the Andrews, the Coveneys

Gumbi · 03-01-2012 11:40PM

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

Of course the State should support them! The issue of deprived schools is completely separate. ALL parents pay taxes to the government. The government takes a portion of these taxes to fund schools, private and state alike. How is it fair that the taxes of a parent whose child is in a private school should go to the public school?

They are paying private fees AND the portion of taxes that funds education. Therefore, I believe it is right that a portion of taxes be used to support private schools.

gcgirl · 03-01-2012 11:51PM

Gumbi wrote: »

Of course the State should support them! The issue of deprived schools is completely separate. ALL parents pay taxes to the government. The government takes a portion of these taxes to fund schools, private and state alike. How is it fair that the taxes of a parent whose child is in a private school should go to the public school?

They are paying private fees AND the portion of taxes that funds education. Therefore, I believe it is right that a portion of taxes be used to support private schools.

Your point of view is shot down
The government should not fund a private enterprise And there is nothing wrong about sending your children to a non fee paying state school if you want to avail of what tax you have paid
Next you'll be talking about the super rich retaining the children's allowance :-/

Chuck Stone · 03-01-2012 11:56PM

hmmm wrote: »

I'm unsure if that's supposed to be a point of some description. Whether kids go to a private, fee paying, or public school, they all receive a subvention from the government. There are no cost savings to be made here.

If a school is getting subsidized by the state it's no longer 'private'. Fee paying schools here get subsidized upwards of 80% of costs (wages) and get grants and get supported by wealthy benefactors.

It's not prejudice, it's fact. As an example, the state is spending a billion "regenerating" parts of Limerick - that's a billion being spent on a community who are largely unemployed and have destroyed their own free properties once already. Meanwhile the middle class areas of the city are having libraries, parks & playing fields closed.

That's an exception rather than a rule. The swimming pool where I grew up (a middle class suburb with only two mature council estates) is public and used mostly by M.C. people, I assure you. I'd say that's not unusual.

But remember, middle class (MC) people are bad people for wanting their kids to get ahead in life. They need to be taken down, who do they think they are?

You're straw-manning here and you know it.

Btw I agree that the MC's are the ones who's backs are being broken by taxes and wanting to get ahead.

That's why the defending of fee-paying schools issue puzzles me. MC parents who send their kids to FP schools are getting double ****ed and are glad of their sore arses.

04-01-2012 12:00AM

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

gcgirl wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with non fee paying schools in the first place so why don't they send them there ? Because they think these schools are beneath them that's what it comes down to, elitism just like the college fees I think if your patents are able to pay your school fees let them pay your college fees too

No it doesn't. I was sent to a certain school because my dad went there and his father went there, so the main reason was tradition. Also if parents (father's) want their son to play rugby in school then you are pretty limited as to where you can send them.

The people I went to school with were a mix. Half and half between wealthy families and families who struggled to send their kids there, who sacrificed holidays, cars etc and probably had saved since they were babies to send them there.

Most people who complain probably don't even know someone who went to a private school, they seem to think its all Doctors/lawyers sons, standing around smoking pipes by the range rover in the school yard. They would be surprised if they actually knew what they were talking about.

What will you do when the parents who struggle, cant afford to send their kids to the private schools because their kids education isn't being subsidised like every other taxpayers child's education is?

The public schools fees are then going to go up and class sizes will grow and everybody's kids suffer, dont cut your nose off to spite your face and get the chip off your shoulder!

Yahew · 04-01-2012 12:02AM

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

Carlos Fluffy Xerox wrote: »

No it doesn't. I was sent to a certain school because my dad went there and his father went there, so the main reason was tradition. Also if parents (father's) want their son to play rugby in school then you are pretty limited as to where you can send them.

Thats been outlawed for the little folk.

04-01-2012 12:04AM

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

Yahew wrote: »

Thats been outlawed for the little folk.

In English?

TheZohanS · 04-01-2012 12:09AM

No, it's not fair: the subsidy should be ended and the money invested in state schools

gcgirl wrote: »

Your point of view is shot down
The government should not fund a private enterprise And there is nothing wrong about sending your children to a non fee paying state school if you want to avail of what tax you have paid
Next you'll be talking about the super rich retaining the children's allowance :-/

Oh dear god.

The government pays the same for private students and public students. The extra expense is picked up by the private schools through funding/fees and for the mostpart the private schools don't ask for any additional grants or funding whereas public schools do.

Private schools are cheaper on the state!

Yahew · 04-01-2012 12:10AM

It should be reduced significantly and more money should be invested in deprived schools

Carlos Fluffy Xerox wrote: »

In English?

It was in English. There were no big words, even.

Well that was a waste of an education.

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

Comments