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

17,000 euros pa to send a Child to Clongowes

24567…11

Comments

  • #32
    robd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 951 ✭✭✭robd


    washman3 wrote: »
    it also "produced" some of the "great" minds that put this country in its current mess. it also "produced" some of the biggest thugs in this country, which for obvious reasons i cannot and will not, name here.
    dont be deluded man,Clongowes did not "produce" Michael O'Leary.!!
    most of his ilk have a natural talent for innovation and would have achieved if they had just a primary education,which many actually did.
    In short Clongowes is a little bubble for the elite,scandalously subsidised by the taxpayer, a practice that should be immediately ended.
    Let nobody be fooled by this bluff that "the rich pay tax too" and the rich subsidise the poor. this is utter nonsense as its so out of proportion its actually laughable.

    Clongowes is an extreme example given it is a boarding school. Most private schools are attended by predominately middle class kids who's parents are the biggest income tax payers by far.

    If state goes ahead with this it will create huge structural problems given most of the schools will be unviable overnight. For example, it would probably cost 3/4 of South Dublin private schools to go bust and become public schools or just go bust overfilling other local public schools.

    Also a lot of the schools are for minority beliefs, religious or otherwise, so pursing this would likely remove these peoples rights to an education built around their beliefs.

    Given private schools only account for 5% of pupils, it's a witch hunt that won't actually deliver savings for the reasons in the above paragraph.

    The investigation being pursued at them moment will likely discover the problems withdrawing support will cause.


  • #33
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    robd wrote: »
    Clongowes is an extreme example given it is a boarding school. Most private schools are attended by predominately middle class kids who's parents are the biggest income tax payers by far.

    If state goes ahead with this it will create huge structural problems given most of the schools will be unviable overnight. For example, it would probably cost 3/4 of South Dublin private schools to go bust and become public schools or just go bust overfilling other local public schools.

    Also a lot of the schools are for minority beliefs, religious or otherwise, so pursing this would likely remove these peoples rights to an education built around their beliefs.

    Given private schools only account for 5% of pupils, it's a witch hunt that won't actually deliver savings for the reasons in the above paragraph.

    The investigation being pursued at them moment will likely discover the problems withdrawing support will cause.

    What are the main "other religious belief" schools? I thought they were mostly Jesuit schools. In any case the general right on opinion is that religion should get out of schools.


  • #34
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    GarIT wrote: »
    If you ask why private schools are state funded, you could also ask why schools run by the catholic church are state funded.

    I personally believe that schools should either be state owned, state run and state funded of fully private, I don't think we should have a middle ground at all.

    Techanically I am in a private school, the school is catholic church owned and run and we pay a €230 per year regestration fee. Unfortunately if we cut funding to private schools 80+% of our schools could close.

    Yeah, but we know what we are talking about - the elite fee paying schools. It seems you want to wait until the schools of the plebs are taken back from the Catholic church, but not the schools of the elites. Lets nationalise the elites first.

    Its not about the money, as I wrote in the AH thread, these fee paying schools tend to be able to contravene equality legislation. A school in Clonmel was found to discriminate against minority ( i.e. traveller) students, when all it did was use a practice where the having family in the school historically would benefit you.


    Now take a look at the Belvedere enrolment questions:

    http://www.belvederecollege.ie/Yvonne/Application%20Form%20for%20Entry%20-%20First%20Year1.pdf

    Mostly about your extended family and whether they went or not.

    which would discriminate against 99% of us, not 10%. The point of these schools is networking, networking amongst the top 5% is more useful than the bottom middle, an equality agency which goes after the latter but not the former, is a joke.


  • #35
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    lizt wrote: »
    You post just stinks of reverse snobbery. " A bubble for the elite" - what are your reasons for saying this.

    The rich may not directly subsidize the poor but they do contribute more the to state (financially) than say a person earning minimum wage purely because they have to pay a higher rate of tax on their earnings.

    Surely a bubble for the elite explains itself. The entry requirements demand that you have more money than average, and more insider clout than average. The main policy seems to be to keep an old elite together, in the same institutions.


  • #36
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    washman3 wrote: »
    it also "produced" some of the "great" minds that put this country in its current mess. it also "produced" some of the biggest thugs in this country, which for obvious reasons i cannot and will not, name here.
    Bah, you "cannot" because you are talking through your ar$e; what a cowardly cop out.


    ...well let me tell you washman, I happen to know for a fact - but, for obvious reasons, I can't tell you how - that your post lacks credibility, and stinks of snobbery and prejudice.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    amacca wrote: »
    Or indeed why shouldn't everyone pay the same percentage of their income in taxes regardless of what they earn?

    The rich would be paying a hell of a lot more if that was the case. It would involve means testing people for all goods, services, and other flat charges like fines and the TV licence.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    My post from the AH thread. Might as well drop it here for the craic.

    [From AH]

    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.

    Not true. It's not as if these buildings and land would disappear.

    The state would simply take over the school. It's already paying the bulk of the costs of the school in teachers wages and grants.


  • #38
    robd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 951 ✭✭✭robd


    Yahew wrote: »
    Now take a look at the Belvedere enrolment questions:

    http://www.belvederecollege.ie/Yvonne/Application%20Form%20for%20Entry%20-%20First%20Year1.pdf

    Mostly about your extended family and whether they went or not.

    which would discriminate against 99% of us, not 10%. The point of these schools is networking, networking amongst the top 5% is more useful than the bottom middle, an equality agency which goes after the latter but not the former, is a joke.

    Enrollment policy is inline with relevant Education Act which can of course be amended by government if they consider it unfit for purpose.

    Full policy is here:

    http://www.belvederecollege.ie/Yvonne/Enrolment%20Policy%2014th%20June%202011%20for%20publishing[1].pdf

    A brother is their primary selection. Father or extended family is secondary.
    I don't see how this is any more elitist than a Ballsbridge school having a selection policy based on your elite address.

    They openly discriminate against girls too, as do all boys only schools. Should that be stopped too? Personally I prefer the idea of co-education.

    Other non-denominational schools actively discriminate against Catholics because they feel they are already sufficently catered for.

    As said all government has to do is amend act if it is unhappy with criteria.


  • #39
    robd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 951 ✭✭✭robd


    Yahew wrote: »
    What are the main "other religious belief" schools? I thought they were mostly Jesuit schools. In any case the general right on opinion is that religion should get out of schools.

    I don't understand your post really. I was referring to all private schools rather than specifically Clongowes or Belvedere. Lots of private schools are Protestant is my point which is a minority religion in Ireland (Republic of). The Jesuits are involved in a relatively small number of schools in Ireland. I know of 2 boys private off hand and 1 public co-educational school that they are involved with. I'm sure there's more.


  • #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Not true. It's not as if these buildings and land would disappear.

    The state would simply take over the school. It's already paying the bulk of the costs of the school in teachers wages and grants.

    :confused:
    The land and the buildings are privately owned, the government would have absolulely no rights to them whatsoever. Do you honestly think the owners of the land would just hand them over to the state?

    And the students who could afford to stay? they'd just walk out and leave would they? really?


  • #41
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Deleted User wrote: »
    :confused:
    The land and the buildings are privately owned, the government would have absolulely no rights to them whatsoever. Do you honestly think the owners of the land would just hand them over to the state?

    Churches currently own a lot of the land schools are built on don't they? Why would it be so different?

    Also they could lease the property or just buy it. They'd probably get a good deal on it in the current climate.
    And the students who could afford to stay? they'd just walk out and leave would they? really?

    And go where?

    I'm not sure if there's such a thing as a truly private (as opposed to subsidized fee-paying) school in the state.

    If there was a 100% private school there'd be very few able to afford the fees.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Churches currently own a lot of the land schools are built on don't they? Why would it be so different?

    I don't understand this at all? Apologies if it's the way I'm reading it, please clarify, thanks.
    Also they could lease the property or just buy it.

    Ah yes, this doesn't cost any money at all. Point well made.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    If there was a 100% private school there'd be very few able to afford the fees.

    Exactly. That is precisely the point :)


  • #43
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,682 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    ITT: People don't understand, think private schools are havens for the rich, and should be closed down.


  • #44
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    frozenfrozen wrote: »
    ITT: People don't understand, think private schools are havens for the rich, and should be closed down.
    people do understand, private schools are havens for the rich.
    and they should not be closed, but just have the public funding stopped.


  • #45
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    robd wrote: »
    I don't understand your post really. I was referring to all private schools rather than specifically Clongowes or Belvedere. Lots of private schools are Protestant is my point which is a minority religion in Ireland (Republic of). The Jesuits are involved in a relatively small number of schools in Ireland. I know of 2 boys private off hand and 1 public co-educational school that they are involved with. I'm sure there's more.

    The elite schools we are talking about are Catholic. South Dublin. Most Irish schools are "private", as in the Churches own the land. We are talking about elite fee paying schools here, not the general free ones. 80% are private.

    As for Protestant schools, the general liberal consensus is that all schools funded by the State should be non-sectarian. This should also apply to Jesuit schools for the elite, and furthermore they should be forced to ease their entry requirements even if private.


  • #46
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    robd wrote: »
    Enrollment policy is inline with relevant Education Act which can of course be amended by government if they consider it unfit for purpose.

    Full policy is here:

    http://www.belvederecollege.ie/Yvonne/Enrolment%20Policy%2014th%20June%202011%20for%20publishing[1].pdf

    A brother is their primary selection. Father or extended family is secondary.
    I don't see how this is any more elitist than a Ballsbridge school having a selection policy based on your elite address.

    They openly discriminate against girls too, as do all boys only schools. Should that be stopped too? Personally I prefer the idea of co-education.

    Other non-denominational schools actively discriminate against Catholics because they feel they are already sufficently catered for.

    As said all government has to do is amend act if it is unhappy with criteria.

    Did you read my first link?

    The law as I pointed out, was applied to the Clonmel school. The school was found guilty by the Equality agency of discrimination against a traveller as he didn't have brothers, or family in the school ( this despite the fact that this school had taken travellers before, doesn't charge fees, and applied the same criteria - a bias based on previous family members being, or having gone there - to non traveller applicants).

    Effectively this means the lower middle classes can't discriminate on family history and the upper middle class can. But the latter has more effect on how real power and privilege are propagated in society. The law is already there, the equality act is not used against real elites.

    As for the other points.

    The Ballsbridge example is "discriminatory" on wealth, but not family status. If rich travellers were banned from a pub they would still be discriminated against and that would be a case for the equality agency, even if the rich traveller could rent a hotel pub unavailable to poor travellers. Equality acts are not about money, but discrimination based on birth. So the Belvedere rules stop new classes running the country, as wealth alone is not good enough. Wealth can get you the house in Ballsbridge, and the school, but family background gets you into Belevedere.


    All schools should be dual-sex and inter-demoninational.


  • #47
    robd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 951 ✭✭✭robd


    Yahew wrote: »
    The elite schools we are talking about are Catholic. South Dublin. Most Irish schools are "private", as in the Churches own the land. We are talking about elite fee paying schools here, not the general free ones. 80% are private.

    I'm finding it hard to make sense of what you're saying. Are you saying 80% of South Dublin schools are private? I would find that hard to believe. The concentration of fee paying schools as a total is certainly in South Dublin.
    Yahew wrote: »
    As for Protestant schools, the general liberal consensus is that all schools funded by the State should be non-sectarian. This should also apply to Jesuit schools for the elite, and furthermore they should be forced to ease their entry requirements even if private.

    I'd prefer if government (or Ruairi Quinn to be specific) tackled this problem. I agree that all funded schools should be non-denominational. AFAIK though, the constitution protects the rights to a religious education.


  • #48
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I don't understand this at all? Apologies if it's the way I'm reading it, please clarify, thanks.

    You're making the point that if the state stopped subsidizing fee-paying schools the state schools would be overwhelmed. I'm saying that is not true because the bulk of the cost of fee-paying schools is picked up by the state anyway (I think it's ~80%. That's ~80% of the cost year after year. So all the state would have to do is make up the other ~20% of the annual costs and buy or lease the school.
    Exactly. That is precisely the point :)

    We're understanding the point differently. Currently fee paying schools are subsidized by the state. They would not be able to survive in their current numbers if they were not.


  • #49
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    robd wrote: »
    I'm finding it hard to make sense of what you're saying. Are you saying 80% of South Dublin schools are private? I would find that hard to believe. The concentration of fee paying schools as a total is certainly in South Dublin.

    About 80% of all schools are privately owned by Churches, or the land is.
    Property on the land may be owned by the State. The teachers are funded by the State in all cases.

    The argument that there should be different laws for fee paying schools because their land are not owned by the State is therefore spurious.


  • #50
    robd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 951 ✭✭✭robd


    Yahew wrote: »
    Did you read my first link?

    The law as I pointed out, was applied to the Clonmel school. The school was found guilty by the Equality agency of discrimination against a traveller as he didn't have brothers, or family in the school ( this despite the fact that this school had taken travellers before, doesn't charge fees, and applied the same criteria - a bias based on previous family members being, or having gone there - to non traveller applicants).

    I hadn't read the link but I went back and read it. Long doc.

    That's not what the law found. In fact it found the opposite. The equality officer held it was indirectly discriminatory but on appeal to the court the court found that while discriminatory, it was justified.

    The relevant act allows discrimination in various ways provided it is published in advance in the admission policies of the school.
    This note examines the recent equality officer and Circuit Court decisions in CBS High School Clonmel v Stokes which concerned whether the rules for admission to the school – in particular a rule giving priority to children whose parents had attended the school - were compatible with the Equal Status Acts 2000-2008. The equality officer held that the rule was indirectly discriminatory and in breach of the Act.2. However, on appeal the Court held that while the rule had a disproportionate impact on Travellers, it was objectively justified


  • #51
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    robd wrote: »
    I hadn't read the link but I went back and read it. Long doc.

    That's not what the law found. In fact it found the opposite. The equality officer held it was indirectly discriminatory but on appeal to the court the court found that while discriminatory, it was justified.

    The relevant act allows discrimination in various ways provided it is published in advance in the admission policies of the school.

    However it was found discriminatory by the Equality Agency, which runs its own parallel legal system. In it's court the school was found guilty. I have continually mentioned the Equality Agency, not the rest of the court system.


    Equality agency judgements can be appealed to proper courts, but until recently most people didn't do that.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    private schools are havens for the rich.

    Loretto convent Dalkey - approximately €270 per month
    Cluny Convent Killiney - approximately €350 per month
    Holy Child Killiney - approximately €450 per month
    St. Andrew's College Booterstown - approximately €600 per month
    Blackrock College day school - approximately €700 per month
    (spread over 10 months, not 12)

    Average Dublin creche about €900 per month.

    why are the people paying the first 5 rich and elitist, and the people paying the second just trying to earn a living?

    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    You're making the point that if the state stopped subsidizing fee-paying schools the state schools would be overwhelmed. I'm saying that is not true because the bulk of the cost of fee-paying schools is picked up by the state anyway (I think it's ~80%. That's ~80% of the cost year after year. So all the state would have to do is make up the other ~20% of the annual costs and buy or lease the school.

    I never said the state would be overwhelmed, I said that it would either cost the tax payer more or lower the standard of the education due to an already stretched budget. You've confirmed in your own posts that it would cost the tax payer more. The state would have to pay the additional 20% in teachers fees PLUS the new rent, plus plenty of extras.
    We're understanding the point differently. Currently fee paying schools are subsidized by the state. They would not be able to survive in their current numbers if they were not.

    We are understanding it perfectly the same, just looking at it from different points of view; fee paying schools in their current state cost the tax payer less than if they didn't exist.

    edit: And let's not forget there are a lot of "mammy's" who work just to give their children a better education, who wouldn't work if their was no option of fee paying school. Now you've got even less tax money going back into the economy.


  • #53
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Loretto convent Dalkey - approximately €270 per month
    Cluny Convent Killiney - approximately €350 per month
    Holy Child Killiney - approximately €450 per month
    St. Andrew's College Booterstown - approximately €600 per month
    Blackrock College day school - approximately €700 per month
    (spread over 10 months, not 12)

    Average Dublin creche about €900 per month.

    why are the people paying the first 5 rich and elitist, and the people paying the second just trying to earn a living?
    because there are no state run creches duh! and the government forced the women into the workplace (remember married tax credits).


  • #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    because there are no state run creches duh! and the government forced the women into the workplace (remember married tax credits).

    Eh, what makes you rich? duh! being able to afford the fees? duh!


  • #55
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Eh, what makes you rich? duh! being able to afford the fees? duh!
    no duh! since you have to have the kid in the creche to get the income duh.

    obviously you think all these kids are then going to go to private schools, duh!

    some helpful reading for you:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/pricewatch/2008/10/13/adding-up-childcare-costs/
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055329094


  • #56
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    We are understanding it perfectly the same, just looking at it from different points of view; fee paying schools in their current state cost the tax payer less than if they didn't exist.
    that is a load of bull, support your argument ...


  • #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    that is a load of bull, support your argument ...

    Listen sweetheart, if you're gonna call bull, actually read the thread will you? I was quoting and directly responding to Chuck Stone's figures. If you want to argue with someone, ask him where he got his numbers Thanks :)

    (sorry chuck!)


  • #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    no duh! since you have to have the kid in the creche to get the income duh.

    obviously you think all these kids are then going to go to private schools, duh!

    some helpful reading for you:

    Oh dear lord. Banging. Head. Off. Brick. Wall.

    Right. Basic logic.

    Person A can afford to send their child to Creche costing €900 per month
    Person B can afford to send their child to Holy Child Killiney costing €450 per month.

    Conclusion:
    Person B MUST be rich if they can afford those HUGE fees.

    Yeh, right.


  • #59
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Listen sweetheart, if you're gonna call bull, actually read the thread will you? I was quoting and directly responding to Chuck Stone's figures. If you want to argue with someone, ask him where he got his numbers Thanks

    (sorry chuck!)
    no worries darling, i'm only here to help you understand facts and how to distinguish them from wild unfounded assumptions ...
    you said you agree with chuck, so are you just talking nonsense?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Oh dear lord. Banging. Head. Off. Brick. Wall.

    Right. Basic logic.

    Person A can afford to send their child to Creche costing €900 per month
    Person B can afford to send their child to Holy Child Killiney costing €450 per month.

    Conclusion:
    Person B MUST be rich if they can afford those HUGE fees.

    Yeh, right.
    maybe if you stopped banging your head you'd get basic logic ...

    Person A gets paid 1000 a month, it costs person A 900 a month to get paid. therefore for the 100 gain they need to send child to creche, and are not rich.
    Person B gets paid a non relevant amount. it cost person B nothing a month, but they choose to pay XXX a month. therefore the can well afford to send child to private education and are rich.

    if this is too complicated for you, i'll try one more time ...


  • #60
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    Thats an argument to whataboutary.

    We are not arguing about whether the people who go to CLongowes etc. shouldn't put their hand in their pockets to pay fees, but whether they should be subsidised by the State. If you admit these schools would be too expensive if unsubsidised, as you do, then you make our point. The point is that if the State is paying for your school teachers, you give it for free. If you want to pay, like a creche, pay the full cost.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    you said you agree with chuck?
    Did I?
    Person A gets paid 1000 a month, it costs person A 900 a month to get paid. therefore for the 100 gain they need to send child to creche, and are not rich.
    Person B gets paid a non relevant amount. it cost person B nothing a month, but they choose to pay XXX a month. therefore the can well afford to send child to private education and are rich.

    I could get the bus to work every day and save a few bob. But I choose to have a car. I must be frickin loaded.


Advertisement