17,000 euros pa to send a Child to Clongowes

professore · 05-01-2012 03:47PM

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.

Your "logic" makes no sense. Person A has no other choice, whereas Person B does. Consider the following example:

Basic Logic:
Person A needs a heart transplant at a cost of € 50,000.
Person B buys a new car at a cost of € 30,000 even though they have a perfectly good working 2 year old one.

Conclusion:
Person A is richer than person B.

davoxx · 05-01-2012 03:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Did I?

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.

see, the usage of the words "we are understanding it perfectly the same" would imply that you share his view, this is similar to me saying "i agree with your view as i share your view" ...

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

yeah good logic there, sweetheart, maybe you should take the bus ...

robd · 05-01-2012 03:55PM

Yahew wrote: »

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.

As it was appealed successfully to the court the equality ruling can be put aside. Thus, it's of no meaning to any present day argument. You do understand that?

Thus private schools and public schools are free to have "parent of child" or other relation as an entrance criteria. Thus it's no different for private schools as for public schools as you seem to be worried about.

Ruling aside, most public schools target a catchment area and thus use residency as a criteria. Most private schools target a segment, their ex pupils, and as such can use that as a criteria. Yes it's discriminatory but it's legal. There are lots of legal criteria both public and private schools can use.

05-01-2012 03:58PM

professore wrote: »

Your "logic" makes no sense. Person A has no other choice, whereas Person B does. :

I see your point, really I do - with that example though it's a little extreme and not realistic (and my thoughts on the person buying the car is that they're just stupid

). Just because you choose to pay extra for a better service doesn't make you rich. Now, I'm not saying for a minute that there aren't rich people attending fee paying schools, of course there are. But to say that everyone in a fee paying school is rich is simply untrue.

professore · 05-01-2012 04:00PM

On the issue, I don't have anything against private schools per sé and all snobbery reverse or otherwise aside, in the interests of fairness I think the private schools should not be State funded, especially considering the state of the economy. I also think private healthcare should not be state funded either. I'm all for a free level of service for everyone at a reasonable standard paid for by taxation and if you want anything better (or at least what you perceive to be better) you pay for it yourself 100% from your own pocket.

The fees are surprisingly low for a lot of the private schools at the moment; I could afford some of them. On the other hand, the "voluntary contributions" requested from the state schools already add up to several hundred a year.

professore · 05-01-2012 04:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I see your point, really I do - with that example though it's a little extreme and not realistic (and my thoughts on the person buying the car is that they're just stupid ). Just because you choose to pay extra for a better service doesn't make you rich. Now, I'm not saying for a minute that there aren't rich people attending fee paying schools, of course there are. But to say that everyone in a fee paying school is rich is simply untrue.

That wasn't my point at all - I agree with you about not everyone in a fee paying school is rich. In fact some of my friends send their kids to fee paying schools and they are by no means rich. I was just pointing out a logical flaw in your argument.

davoxx · 05-01-2012 04:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I see your point, really I do - with that example though it's a little extreme and not realistic (and my thoughts on the person buying the car is that they're just stupid ). Just because you choose to pay extra for a better service doesn't make you rich. Now, I'm not saying for a minute that there aren't rich people attending fee paying schools, of course there are. But to say that everyone in a fee paying school is rich is simply untrue.

wow, just wow ...
that is some about of crap i've seen in one post ... you made a bad argument, do the "Oh dear lord. Banging. Head. Off. Brick. Wall." not apologise for being wrong and saying silly nonsense about creches ...

seriously wow ... i really hope private schools teach better logic since they are being paid more ... then maybe a few more people should re-enroll ...

05-01-2012 04:09PM

professore wrote: »

That wasn't my point at all - I agree with you about not everyone in a fee paying school is rich. In fact some of my friends send their kids to fee paying schools and they are by no means rich. I was just pointing out a logical flaw in your argument.

Apologies, I thought you were by your own logic example, I may have misinterpreted. I was simply trying to make a very basic point, that someone paying out twice the amount of another person is not considered rich (not that I think they should be) but the other person is. There are lots of other factors. Person A might have a huge mortgage, person B may not etc. I certainly wasn't trying to take it to creche fees v school fees debate, I was trying to make the basic point, as you say you understand, that not all kids in private schools come from rich families

robd · 05-01-2012 04:10PM

davoxx wrote: »

seriously wow ... i really hope private schools teach better logic since they are being paid more ... then maybe a few more people should re-enroll ...

They do, but the rugby knocks it all out of them !!!

jmayo · 05-01-2012 04:36PM

pebbles21 wrote: »

Im sure Mr O Leary has paid more than his fair share back into the economy since,and if schools like this produce more Mr O Leary's then i don't see a problem tbh...

Ahh FFS O'Leary business ability and sheer drive is not a product of Glongowes.
And if you want to drag it's alumni into this, I will refer to one john charles mcquaid archhbishop of Dublin and primate of Ireland from 1940 to 1972, possible child abuser, but most definetly excusor and condoner of it and the man that helped keep this bloody country in the dark ages for decades.

Spiderman68 wrote: »

juan.kerr wrote: »

The ' elite did a runner'. Michael O Leary is the single biggest contributor to our revenue take. Such ranting does grave injustice to him and 'the 5%' who contribute so much. See how the welfare state manages if ' the contributors ' did a runner. Time to wake up and see what's really going on. Read the recent IMF report on what it says about our welfare state.

For one MOL I give you johhny ronan and richard barrett (both Castleknock), derek quinlan and dermot glleeson (Blackrock) whose pirvate education has done little to lessen the billions in debts they have dumped upon the Irish taxpayers.

To add insult to injury we also helped pay for their privelged education. :rolleyes:

I notice people have been quick to drag O'Leary in as an example of what these educational establishments can produce, but yet they fail to make reference to the old boys network that has this country in the sh*tter it is in.

gandalf wrote: »

...
A lot of parents who sent their children to fee paying schools do so sacrificing what others take from granted like nights out or additional holidays. I know mine did. They did it because they wanted a good education for their children.

Do you want to remove that choice for people and make it harder for those parents who may not be mega rich but are willing to sacrifice to give their children a potential extra start in life.

I find that statement grossly arrogant and bloody offensive. :mad:
You are basically intimating that those parents who do not make the effort to send their kids to fee paying schools are wasting their money on frivolous things and failing their kids.

Did you happen to voice this opinion before on an RTE1 radio show by any chance ?

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.

Most of the non Catholic private schools AFAIK have become multi-denominational.
Examples are Kings Hospital and Wesley.

n97 mini · 05-01-2012 05:00PM

I went to boarding school. Fees paid by my public sector parents, it was quite possibly cheaper than me living at home.

The teachers are no different to any other school, some excellent ones and some turkeys. The same could've been said about the students.

What it did provide that living at home couldn't was an army-like regimen. We had to study because we had no choice. We had to go to bed at the same time every day and get up the same time every morning. We had very limited access TV and no access to stuff like alcohol, pool tables, or women. Sport was generally the only way to pass the time when not studying.

If you didn't get the leaving cert you were capable of you were seriously trying not to.

I think of it as a relatively cheap way for my parents to ensure I didn't end up a waster.

andrew · 05-01-2012 05:02PM

I think part of the reason state schools are comparatively worse than private schools is that there's a lack of political will to do anything about state schools. While I've no data on this, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of those in power didn't go to state schools. Further, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who go to private schools are solidly middle or upper middle class (though obviously not all middle class people/politicians etc went to private school.) Combined, the 'middle classes,' plus those actually in politics, are the ones with a disproportionate amount of clout when it comes to government policy. This is for a few reasons. Politicians obviously influence policy by virtue of the fact that they set the agenda, create policies etc. The middle class tends to be more educated and politically aware, for a host of reasons which mainly boil down to them having significantly more social and cultural capital and influence.

If these people don't have to send their children to state schools, then they have no personal incentive to significantly improve the quality of state schools; they don't really have to care that state schools aren't really that good. As such, they don't bother actually implementing policies to improve state schools, not out of malice, but simply because the neither know personally of the problems in state schools, and will never need to encounter such problems personally. As a result, I think in principal at least, that private schooling should be abolished. The people with the power to change the educational system should be forced to suffer the consequences of their actions or lack of action on the issue. In the long term, I think that this would significantly improve the place of education on the political agenda.

In the short term, I think that if it makes economic sense to remove state funding from private schools, that this should be done. Surely it wouldn't be that hard to figure out the costs/benefits of such an action. I can't think of any principled reasons as to why the state should fund private schools at all.

05-01-2012 05:08PM

andrew wrote: »

....

I genuinely think that's the best post I've ever read on the "against" side of the argument. I'm not saying I agree with it all now, let us not get carried away! But you certainly have a very well made and valid point which is worth considering.

Padraig Mor · 05-01-2012 05:15PM

Yahew wrote: »

T 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.

Do they not effectively pay for the teachers via their taxes?

robd · 05-01-2012 05:31PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I genuinely think that's the best post I've ever read on the "against" side of the argument. I'm not saying I agree with it all now, let us not get carried away! But you certainly have a very well made and valid point which is worth considering.

On the for the status quo side, given how badly the free fees in Colleges have gone (which was supposed to give access for all), this seems like a way to destroy a system that currently works.

Everyone is the same again to start with. Then year 2 or 3, non voluntary admin fees are introduced and means tested. So middle class parents (and above) are paying to send their kids to public schools alongside lower class kids who aren't paying. So all is equals in terms of the education but middle class parents (and above) get screwed to pay for it.

But it's all equal in socialist utopia !!!

andrew · 05-01-2012 05:38PM

robd wrote: »

On the for the status quo side, given how badly the free fees in Colleges have gone (which was supposed to give access for all), this seems like a way to destroy a system that currently works.

Everyone is the same again to start with. Then year 2 or 3, non voluntary admin fees are introduced and means tested. So middle class parents (and above) are paying to send their kids to public schools alongside lower class kids who aren't paying. So all is equals in terms of the education but middle class parents (and above) get screwed to pay for it.

But it's all equal in socialist utopia !!!

Given the state has been committed to free education (up to second level) for all students since the 60's (and given it's the norm in most european countries), I think it'd be much more difficult to introduce these kind of fees at second level. Third level institutions have only been 'free' for about 15 years, and there's much more international variation with regard to payment for third level.

But I recognise that there would be some cost to the state. That said, I think it's easy to sometimes forget that recessions aren't permanent; not all policy debate need exist under the assumption that there's a massive recession happening and that we therefore can't ever afford to do anything which costs money. While this is true now, it won't be true in the future, and I think it's worth discussing such ideas now so that they're fully fleshed out by the time the opportunity to implement them comes along.

ressem · 05-01-2012 06:22PM

professore wrote: »

On the issue, I don't have anything against private schools per sé and all snobbery reverse or otherwise aside, in the interests of fairness I think the private schools should not be State funded, especially considering the state of the economy. I also think private healthcare should not be state funded either. I'm all for a free level of service for everyone at a reasonable standard paid for by taxation and if you want anything better (or at least what you perceive to be better) you pay for it yourself 100% from your own pocket.

The fees are surprisingly low for a lot of the private schools at the moment; I could afford some of them. On the other hand, the "voluntary contributions" requested from the state schools already add up to several hundred a year.

Like many others I don't see why this is seen as fairness.

€530 million department money paid to private schools over 5 years. About ~€12 million a year in capital and day to day spending + ~€94 million in teachers pay at state school levels.
This for ~7.5% of the country's students.

Those parents choose to contribute the same again on top.

I can understand wanting to raid the capital amounts (1.46% of the total for all schools)

But your view of fairness is that if someone expresses dissatisfaction at the way state schools are funded and run and does something about it at their own expense; then to punish them the state must tax them for education but provide nothing towards teachers pay.

Or kids leave the schools (say at a guess, numbers reduce 4 fold for a doubling of cost?) So ~5-6% more students added to the state sector where it costs the state more.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0514/1224296946084.html

Some religious boarding schools subsidise attached state schools, reducing the need for contributions by the way.

(I was state educated if it matters.)

andrew wrote:

While I've no data on this, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of those in power didn't go to state schools.

Nope, mentioned earlier, about 10% of politicians. If 7.5% go to private schools then they're mildly overrepresented. (In the UK, a third of MPs went to fee paying schools.)

--edit
Talking about overrepresentation, in the last dail, about 35 of the 166 were formerly teachers / lecturers, but I agree that

andrew wrote:

I think part of the reason state schools are comparatively worse than private schools is that there's a lack of political will to do anything about state schools

Obedience to the party executive is everything to these Dail button pressers.

Chuck Stone · 05-01-2012 06:51PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If you want to argue with someone, ask him where he got his numbers Thanks

(sorry chuck!)

Those are from memory and AFAIK it was something like ~80% of the cost of fee-paying schools was state funded.

I could be wrong though.

andrew · 05-01-2012 08:08PM

ressem wrote: »

Nope, mentioned earlier, about 10% of politicians. If 7.5% go to private schools then they're mildly overrepresented. (In the UK, a third of MPs went to fee paying schools.)

I'm pretty surprised by that statistic, but it's nice to see the number's so low. I wonder what percentage of them send their children to private schools however, since that matters just as much if not more; is that data available?

ressem · 05-01-2012 11:13PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Those are from memory and AFAIK it was something like ~80% of the cost of fee-paying schools was state funded.

I could be wrong though.

From that times article again

The 2009 McCarthy report on public service reform estimated the 50-plus fee-paying schools generated about €100 million in annual fee income from parents. This is in addition to the €100 million per year from the State for teacher salaries.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0514/1224296946084.html

jmayo · 06-01-2012 11:11AM

n97 mini wrote: »

I went to boarding school. Fees paid by my public sector parents, it was quite possibly cheaper than me living at home.

The teachers are no different to any other school, some excellent ones and some turkeys. The same could've been said about the students.

What it did provide that living at home couldn't was an army-like regimen. We had to study because we had no choice. We had to go to bed at the same time every day and get up the same time every morning. We had very limited access TV and no access to stuff like alcohol, pool tables, or women. Sport was generally the only way to pass the time when not studying.

If you didn't get the leaving cert you were capable of you were seriously trying not to.

I think of it as a relatively cheap way for my parents to ensure I didn't end up a waster.

Yeah all of us public school educated people ended up wasters unlike those fine gentlemen that went to private school. :rolleyes:

Zulu · 06-01-2012 11:20AM

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah all of us public school educated people ended up wasters unlike those fine gentlemen that went to private school. :rolleyes:

He was clearly talking about himself ending up a waster; his own personal needs as a child growing up.

Perhaps spend a little time considering why you took his comment vis his situation so personal.

fly_agaric · 06-01-2012 01:21PM

robd wrote: »

On the for the status quo side, ...this seems like a way to destroy a system that currently works.

Does it? Our education system is mediocre for a supposed first world country.
Wasting money (that we are partially dependant on our Troika Benefactors for at the moment) subsidising private schools is quite stupid.

robd wrote: »

But it's all equal in socialist utopia !!!

We'd be ending what is effectively a state subsidy for a private sector business. The money saved can go to try and make the "state" education system better. Maybe spend it on hiring more teachers, new buildings for some of our rathole primary schools etc.

Let people pay entire cost of it if they want a separate education.

If they can't afford that their children can go to the schools that their taxes help pay for.

jmayo · 06-01-2012 01:23PM

Zulu wrote: »

He was clearly talking about himself ending up a waster; his own personal needs as a child growing up.

Perhaps spend a little time considering why you took his comment vis his situation so personal.

Yes but a statement like that infers that by not going to private school/boarding school people can end wasters.
Maybe they can, but then again their backgrounds may dictate that already.

A number of weeks back I heard a radio debate (Radio 1 in the morning) about this very issue.

One lady phoned or texted in and used that argument as to why she sent her sons to private school.
She claimed that private schools instilled a better ethos in pupils and makes them better people.
Well that may be true, but the inference is also there that pupils that go to public schools are somehow less good.

Personally I think upbringing by parents dictates this more than what school kids go to.

On that same radio show a caller used the argument that Gandalf brought forward (see my reference to radio in my reply to his post), that parents forego holidays and other things so that their kids can go to private school.

A caller then responded to this statement, claiming this was highly arrogant and an insult to those who were not sending their kids to private school, because it was somehow being intimated that these people were somehow wasting their money on frivilous things.

Zulu · 06-01-2012 01:30PM

jmayo wrote: »

Yes but a statement like that infers that by not going to private school/boarding school people can end wasters.

No, it infers that the person may end up a waster. It does not every other person may end up a waster. I fear the only thing infering that is your own prejudice (as in pre-judgement).

fly_agaric · 06-01-2012 01:32PM

andrew wrote: »

I'm pretty surprised by that statistic, but it's nice to see the number's so low. I wonder what percentage of them send their children to private schools however, since that matters just as much if not more; is that data available?

Belief in innate superiority of private education + fee paying schools etc is mostly a Dublin (or city?) phenomenon?

robd · 06-01-2012 01:58PM

fly_agaric wrote: »

Belief in innate superiority of private education + fee paying schools etc is mostly a Dublin (or city?) phenomenon?

Most parents who send their kids to a private school don't necessarily believe it to be superior. Certain parts of Dublin in particular are low on good quality public secondary educational establishments. Can be suburb specific even. Despite benchmarking and CPA there's ZERO accountability in public schools. Private schools are accountable to the parents that pay fees. In general the Institute of Education hugely pulled up the standards in private schools as parents started pulling out non performing kids from traditional private schools.

Yes you could argue that this should be fixed but it won't be just like CPA will never deliver savings or efficiencies. Private schools offer a second option for parents caught in this quandary.

melekalikimaka · 06-01-2012 02:15PM

jmayo wrote: »

Yes but a statement like that infers that by not going to private school/boarding school people can end wasters.
Maybe they can, but then again their backgrounds may dictate that already.

A number of weeks back I heard a radio debate (Radio 1 in the morning) about this very issue.

One lady phoned or texted in and used that argument as to why she sent her sons to private school.
She claimed that private schools instilled a better ethos in pupils and makes them better people.
Well that may be true, but the inference is also there that pupils that go to public schools are somehow less good.

Personally I think upbringing by parents dictates this more than what school kids go to.

On that same radio show a caller used the argument that Gandalf brought forward (see my reference to radio in my reply to his post), that parents forego holidays and other things so that their kids can go to private school.

A caller then responded to this statement, claiming this was highly arrogant and an insult to those who were not sending their kids to private school, because it was somehow being intimated that these people were somehow wasting their money on frivilous things.

been to both private and public schooling, and i can tell you from my personal experience, just my own experience, that public school students have a higher proportion of students who drop out/become dug addicts/serve time. I'm not talking a percentage higher, i'm talking 5-1. Now this wouldnt be a general statment, now was for college, i went to both private and public, and well... thats another kettle of fish altogether...

Bigtalker · 06-01-2012 03:12PM

I think a few people on here are missing the point. Every child in Ireland has the right to free education no matter class/race or religion etc at the primary and secondary school level. Therefore the government pay a sum per child to each school (regardless of class/race or religion). The purpose of a private school and additional fees paid by parents (who, more often than not work very hard to afford this) is to allow for additional teachers focused on small classes, offering additional subjects, maintaining beautiful buildings and surroudings, upgrade science labs etc etc. If parents wish to offer these further enhancements to their childrens education they have every right to.

As previously stated on here its a choice that some people can either afford to make, work hard to make or a choice some dont have.

davoxx · 06-01-2012 03:50PM

Bigtalker wrote: »

I think a few people on here are missing the point. Every child in Ireland has the right to free education no matter class/race or religion etc at the primary and secondary school level. Therefore the government pay a sum per child to each school (regardless of class/race or religion). The purpose of a private school and additional fees paid by parents (who, more often than not work very hard to afford this) is to allow for additional teachers focused on small classes, offering additional subjects, maintaining beautiful buildings and surroudings, upgrade science labs etc etc. If parents wish to offer these further enhancements to their childrens education they have every right to.

As previously stated on here its a choice that some people can either afford to make, work hard to make or a choice some dont have.

damn right people are missing the point, the government provides a bus service for everyone no matter class/race or religion etc ...
the purpose of a limo is to get there in style and comfort, if the people want to catch a limo, the government should subsidised it, then the people within it can look down on the bus people and not have to work very very hard to pay for it, unlike the lazy bus people who work very unhard.

wait a sec they don't do that, why should they do it for education?
if you don't want to avail of free education, go pay for it yourself, all by yourself ... since they work very hard, the reward will be sweeter ...

17,000 euros pa to send a Child to Clongowes

Comments