Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

Dave! · 09-10-2012 10:59AM #1

A DISPUTE OVER whether the State’s subsidies for private schools should be cut in the next Budget has split Government opinion.

Labour junior minister Alan Kelly has described the annual subvention – totalling about €96 million – as “a luxury rather than a necessity” and said it would need to be examined as part of the €2.25 billion of spending cuts required in the upcoming Budget.

However, Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar has today insisted that not every parent who sends their child to a fee-paying school is “super rich” and that many make huge sacrifices to do so. Varadkar added that closing down such schools would cost the State money, the Irish Times reports.

I don't get why the State is so mixed up with private schools in the first place. The Dept of Education pays the teachers' salaries doesn't it? And also pays a subvention for the running of the school. Surely if some private individual/company wants to start up a private school, then they should be free to do so (assuming they meet certain conditions, and follow the department curriculum), and the State shouldn't need to be involved other than that? Perhaps simplistic, can't say I've given it a lot of thought.

I've seen religion be used as justification, because most minority faith schools are private. I'm of the opinion that public schools should all be secular, but in the absence of that because so many schools are under Catholic patronage, would there be an equality issue if the State failed to provide funding to all the minority faiths too?

spank_inferno · 09-10-2012 11:50AM

Some posh area TD was on the "Morning Ireland" this morning practically in tears at the thought of her poor constituents already paying thousands for private education having to pay a little more.

Of course it should be cut.... and phased out over time altogether as it would take time to increase alternate capacity.
(Or the state could just buy the private schools and have them open to all!)

It's abhorrent that poorer tax-payers pay for the private education of the wealthy.

Sleepy · 09-10-2012 11:51AM

The main argument I've heard against this is a pragmatic one: that many students in these schools would revert to the public education system if the fees had to be raised to cover the difference in any subvention thus costing the Dept. of Education more than they'd save.

Idealogically, I'm against private schooling: when the rich and powerful can afford to avoid the consequences of badly run state education, they're less motivated to improve it and in most cases, it's the rich and powerful that get elected. Also, whilst I believe in free market economics, I'm also in favour of meritocracy: one's success in life should be a result of one's own efforts more than the neighbourhood one happened to grow up in. Obviously the wealth of one's background will always play a factor in a free country (ability to afford grinds, educational trips etc.), parental influence can be as strong a factor imo.

VinLieger · 09-10-2012 12:06PM

No they shouldnt be cut, these schools cost the state 3500 less per student, if the subsidy was to be cut alot of these kid would revert back to non fee paying education again increasing the burden on our already in crisis education system.
Yes people with a chip on their shoulder will argue that they all can pay for it but the reality is alot cant if this subsidy is withdrawn, many families who send their children to private education have chosen to do so at the expense of other luxuries like the odd holiday etc, they value education more.

Another way to look at this is in reality the state isnt subsidising these schools the parents who pay for this are actually subsidising the state as every child in ireland is entitled to a free education that is paid for by tax payers, what these parents are doing is halfing the amount the state needs to spend on their children by paying money to the schools directly.
Its similar to if a group of parents who send their children to a public school decided to band together to pay more for improvements to classrooms, extra curricular activities and other things that arent a priority for the department of education.

This is really labour trying to win back their base as so far they have done nothing for them and private education is an easy target for them that is sure to get their base riled up, but in reality the numbers do not add up as if the payment is taken away many children will simply end up in non fee paying schools with more of the burden being placed upon the tax payer.

I also love the argument people trot out "why should my taxes be paying for these peoples kids" people seem to forget that these parents also pay taxes on top of the private fees

Manach · 09-10-2012 12:12PM

Never gone to a fee school myself so neutral on the subject.
But AFAIR, the way the constitution is set-up it is up to essential the parents and not the state to be the primary educators of the children and for the state to support the choices made by ensuring that the children receive the same subsidy as public schools - so long as it meets the defined Departmental standards. Given this reflects a more family-centric policy than most other similar countries have, there is a place for fee schools.

spank_inferno · 09-10-2012 12:27PM

VinLieger wrote: »

I also love the argument people trot out "why should my taxes be paying for these peoples kids" people seem to forget that these parents also pay taxes on top of the private fees

What kind of logic is that?

Just because someone pays income tax does not mean we have to like our taxes subsidising their childs private education!

VinLieger · 09-10-2012 12:44PM

spank_inferno wrote: »

What kind of logic is that?

Just because someone pays income tax does not mean we have to like our taxes subsidising their childs private education!

Good job and not reading my post at all or at being able to do simple maths. So a parent who sends his or her child to private education pays however much to that school, saving the department of education 3500, they also pay income tax, household charge and many many other taxes like everyone else so in reality you arent paying for their kids, they are more than likely paying for yours as your child costs the state twice as much as theirs.

spank_inferno · 09-10-2012 12:52PM

so it saves €3500....
Terrific.

So why not make that saving €4000 instead & let the parents make up the extra €500.

I see no harm in letting the already better off contribute more to their childrens exclusivity.

VinLieger · 09-10-2012 12:56PM

spank_inferno wrote: »

so it saves €3500....
Terrific.

So why not make that saving €4000 instead & let the parents make up the extra €500.

I see no harm in letting the already better off contribute more to their childrens exclusivity.

Fair enough i can agree that the amount could be looked at but cutting off the payment completely is a stupid idea and is the automatic reaction of alot of people who simply dislike the idea of private education and wont listen to the facts of it saves more money than it costs

everdead.ie · 09-10-2012 12:59PM

I don't believe that a fee paying school should have no state subsidy as I believe we have a responsibility to educate the future of our country.

However if they are paying extra to get more than it is only right that we reduce the amount we subsidize the schools.

I wouldn't withdraw the subsidy completely though there is a balance there to be achieved.

Sleepy · 09-10-2012 01:02PM

As I said already, I'd be ideologically in favour of getting rid of them altogether but...

This comes down to a question of sums: will the total savings from any cut in subvention per student be more than the cost of accepting the additional students into the public education system.

spank_inferno · 09-10-2012 01:03PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Fair enough i can agree that the amount could be looked at but cutting off the payment completely is a stupid idea and is the automatic reaction of alot of people who simply dislike the idea of private education and wont listen to the facts of it saves more money than it costs

We agree on that Vin.

I wouldn't have them scrapped either straight away.
Its not practical for the system itself and really unfair on the kids.

Though I would like to see a reduction on state transfers to private schools over time.
Given that this system has existed for nearly a century it would take many years for that to be implemented rationaly. (mabey 20-30 years).

JustinDee · 09-10-2012 01:18PM

Any educational facility teaching from the national curriculum is equally entitled to a subsidy for every student enrolled to attend.
Doesn't matter if it is a fee-paying or non-fee paying facility.

It isn't a case of the "better off" attending either. Families scrimp and save in order years in advance in order to send their kid(s) to a particular fee-paying school.
Two holidays per year? Second or third property? Second or third motor vehicle? All of these are hardly exclusive to the "better off". A 20-per-day smoker would save over €3000 if they kicked the habit. That's a term fee in some schools.

If fee-paying schools were to be left in the wind, then there had better be a contingency plan on how to facilitate the education of those students affected.

spank_inferno · 09-10-2012 01:19PM

Sleepy wrote: »

This comes down to a question of sums: will the total savings from any cut in subvention per student be more than the cost of accepting the additional students into the public education system.

Fair point.
Though lets not assume that any cut would inevitably lead to a given student moving back to the state system.

Say the burden on the paying parent increased by €500 - €1000 per year.
That may cause some kids to leave the private system, however I reckon most will just pay the extra to remain within the private school.

So there is a saving to be had.

I think if the Gov were serious about it (which I don't think they are), they should start with a 5% cut starting from say the 2014-2015 term.

.... Then see where it goes from there.

ted1 · 09-10-2012 01:24PM

spank_inferno wrote: »

What kind of logic is that?

Just because someone pays income tax does not mean we have to like our taxes subsidising their childs private education!

Why should I not only subsidse a fee paying pupil but also completely pay for another pupils.
Each child in the state is entitled to n education, if a parent wants to pay abut extra, then what's the harm ?

OldNotWIse · 09-10-2012 01:38PM

spank_inferno wrote: »

What kind of logic is that?

Just because someone pays income tax does not mean we have to like our taxes subsidising their childs private education!

Er...I think the point was that all children's education is being subsidised by tax...but those who go to fee-paying schools are actually subsidised less because their parents pay extra.

As was already stated: "in reality the state isnt subsidising these schools the parents who pay for this are actually subsidising the state as every child in ireland is entitled to a free education that is paid for by tax payers, what these parents are doing is halfing the amount the state needs to spend on their children by paying money to the schools directly"
If you dont agree with the taxpayer subsidising education then you should withdraw your own child from school because otherwise you're a hypocrite.

Sleepy · 09-10-2012 01:41PM

ted1 wrote: »

if a parent wants to pay abut extra, then what's the harm ?

Social inequality and the danger of the public education system deteriorating as politicians who are all wealthy enough to avail of private schools for their own children don't care enough about it.

OldNotWIse · 09-10-2012 01:50PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Social inequality and the danger of the public education system deteriorating as politicians who are all wealthy enough to avail of private schools for their own children don't care enough about it.

Excuse you, my parents were far from "wealthy" when they made sacrifices to send me to the best school they could. Sacrifices. They didn't have a mobile home in Cairn Beach or an extra room plonked onto their house every year, like a lot of people I know who spent money like it was going out of fashion but still begrudge me doing well because I went to a fee paying school. Do these people actually think that paying fees is enough? Do they realise that the student has to put in the work also? Drives me spare when people harp on about how I had things handed to me - I worked damn hard for everything I have and will not have my achievements dismissed as being merely someone else's doing.

JustinDee · 09-10-2012 01:51PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Social inequality and the danger of the public education system deteriorating as politicians who are all wealthy enough to avail of private schools for their own children don't care enough about it.

"Social inequality"?? lol
"Social inequality" is all around, regardless of the means of income to any particular household and is not involuntary. I've already given an example of a family making their own sacrifices to save for child's education, compared with a perceived "poorer off" family, who can spend/borrow the same and blow on luxury goods and services. Who is more "wealthy"?

On another note, if a private educational organisation is to lose a subsidy potentially damaging its existance, then they can opt out of the department's curriculum and teach their own. The knock-on effects of this happening would dwarf any perceived "social inequality" you might choose to see out there.

JustinDee · 09-10-2012 01:58PM

I'll also add that "social inequality" can also be Paddy and wife sending kids to a gaelscoil as there are more "Irish" kids there.
Cut the subsidy?

Sleepy · 09-10-2012 02:09PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Excuse you, my parents were far from "wealthy" when they made sacrifices to send me to the best school they could. Sacrifices. They didn't have a mobile home in Cairn Beach or an extra room plonked onto their house every year, like a lot of people I know who spent money like it was going out of fashion but still begrudge me doing well because I went to a fee paying school. Do these people actually think that paying fees is enough? Do they realise that the student has to put in the work also? Drives me spare when people harp on about how I had things handed to me - I worked damn hard for everything I have and will not have my achievements dismissed as being merely someone else's doing.

Where did I dismiss your achievements? I don't even know what (if any) they are...

You had a better education than others because your parents could afford it. I believe a parents wealth shouldn't be able to give any student that advantage over any other. Much in the same way I don't believe a parent should be able to buy a student's place in a university, pay someone to give them an apprenticeship over another candidate or hire them ahead of more suitable candidates in a public body.

The exact line of mine you quoted referred to the fact that any TD would be able to pay for private education for their children. This means that the very people charged with managing / improving our education system are able to shield their children from the consequences of any decisions they make regarding that system. That's wrong imo.

JustinDee wrote: »

"Social inequality"?? lol
"Social inequality" is all around, regardless of the means of income to any particular household and is not involuntary. I've already given an example of a family making their own sacrifices to save for child's education, compared with a perceived "poorer off" family, who can spend/borrow the same and blow on luxury goods and services. Who is more "wealthy"?

On another note, if a private educational organisation is to lose a subsidy potentially damaging its existance, then they can opt out of the department's curriculum and teach their own. The knock-on effects of this happening would dwarf any perceived "social inequality" you might choose to see out there.

Personally, I'd ban private education full stop (it'd help curtail religious extremism as an added benefit).

However, regardless of whether a parent struggles to afford private education or whether they can afford to bestow the school in question with a new gymnasium the fact remains they can afford to pay that money. Many other families can't and that's usually through no fault of their own (No matter what sacrifices we made as a family, I couldn't put my children through fee-paying schools).

No, private education is not the only cause of social inequality, but it's a contributing factor and happens to be the subject under discussion. If you want to start a wider topic on social equality, go ahead, if you make any interesting points, I'll probably throw in my own views.

Manach · 09-10-2012 02:12PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Personally, I'd ban private education full stop (it'd help curtail religious extremism as an added benefit).

I'd invite you to give an example of religious "extremism" traced to Irish private education.

OldNotWIse · 09-10-2012 02:14PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Where did I dismiss your achievements? I don't even know what (if any) they are...

You had a better education than others because your parents could afford it. I believe a parents wealth shouldn't be able to give any student that advantage over any other. Much in the same way I don't believe a parent should be able to buy a student's place in a university, pay someone to give them an apprenticeship over another candidate or hire them ahead of more suitable candidates in a public body.

The exact line of mine you quoted referred to the fact that any TD would be able to pay for private education for their children. This means that the very people charged with managing / improving our education system are able to shield their children from the consequences of any decisions they make regarding that system. That's wrong imo.

Personally, I'd ban private education full stop (it'd help curtail religious extremism as an added benefit).

However, regardless of whether a parent struggles to afford private education or whether they can afford to bestow the school in question with a new gymnasium the fact remains they can afford to pay that money. Many other families can't and that's usually through no fault of their own (No matter what sacrifices we made as a family, I couldn't put my children through fee-paying schools).

No, private education is not the only cause of social inequality, but it's a contributing factor and happens to be the subject under discussion. If you want to start a wider topic on social equality, go ahead, if you make any interesting points, I'll probably throw in my own views.

I did not say you specifically for Gods sake.

Like I said already, my parents "afforded" it by making sacrifices. My Dad spent 50 years of his life hauling slates up 40ft ladders in all seasons. Now he is in his sixties and is crippled. I am at least thankful that I am able to afford a good standard fo living now so I can pay him back and try to look after him and my mum in their senior years. My parents did without so I could have a better standard of education.

I stand by what I said - there are plenty of parents out there who CAN afford a better education for their child but they choose to drink/smoke/gamble/build extensions/go on foreign holidays/buy pedigree dogs/upgrade the mobile home every year etc - these people have more disposable income than my parents had - but because they chose not to invest in their childrens education, you think they are "less wealthy" - come off it. Enough of the victim mentality.

Sleepy · 09-10-2012 02:19PM

JustinDee wrote: »

I'll also add that "social inequality" can also be Paddy and wife sending kids to a gaelscoil as there are more "Irish" kids there.
Cut the subsidy?

Similarly, yes, I'd get rid of them in favour of a single curriculum, consistent teaching methodology system based on equality of funding and equal access to resources for all students regardless of their background.

Manach wrote:

Personally, I'd ban private education full stop (it'd help curtail religious extremism as an added benefit).
I'd invite you to give an example of religious "extremism" traced to Irish private education.

I couldn't provide one. Is it really that out there to suggest that with an ever increasing variety of religions being practised in this country it's not a possibility though? If we can secularise our state schools and remove the possibility of having children privately educated, it prevents it ever becoming an issue, ensures equality of access to education and could only help encourage an integrated society.

JustinDee · 09-10-2012 02:19PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Personally, I'd ban private education full stop (it'd help curtail religious extremism as an added benefit)

Majority of schools in Ireland are run along with Roman Catholic ethos and this is die-cast. How would this "curtail religious extremism"? Why would my children be forced to attend one of these schools? You're trying to force some warped form of 'equality' when it is anything but.

Sleepy wrote: »

However, regardless of whether a parent struggles to afford private education or whether they can afford to bestow the school in question with a new gymnasium the fact remains they can afford to pay that money. Many other families can't and that's usually through no fault of their own (No matter what sacrifices we made as a family, I couldn't put my children through fee-paying schools)

That's quite a brave assumption. Where should this stop? Why not extend to third-level too? Third-level education is an option, not an necessity. Why subsidise somebody else, right?

So what if your family couldn't afford to? Its nobody else's duty to ensure this comes about but your own family's. Why should their circumstances prevent someone else who has managed to save and make sacrifices from having a private school to choose from? The fact doesn't remain that "somebody can simply afford to". It is their management of means which determines their ability to do so. The term "poorer off" or "wealthy" is so undeniably subjective it cannot credibly form the basis of any argument on this matter.

Sleepy wrote: »

No, private education is not the only cause of social inequality, but it's a contributing factor . . .

No, it is not a driving factor to social inequality. Income and how it is managed is far more substantial an effect.

JustinDee · 09-10-2012 02:23PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Similarly, yes, I'd get rid of them in favour of a single curriculum, consistent teaching methodology system based on equality of funding and equal access to resources for all students regardless of their background

Forced equality (this is what you're proposing here) is a pipe dream and is yet to be proven as successful (go on, give me Norway or another Nordic country as an example, for a laugh).

Where would the money come from to provide this Utopian wonderland of across-the-board homegenous education?

Sleepy · 09-10-2012 02:29PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I did not say you specifically for Gods sake.

You quoted me and replied in a single paragraph. Apologies if I took you at what you wrote if you meant something else.

Like I said already, my parents "afforded" it by making sacrifices. My Dad spent 50 years of his life hauling slates up 40ft ladders in all seasons. Now he is in his sixties and is crippled. I am at least thankful that I am able to afford a good standard fo living now so I can pay him back and try to look after him and my mum in their senior years. My parents did without so I could have a better standard of education.

I stand by what I said - there are plenty of parents out there who CAN afford a better education for their child but they choose to drink/smoke/gamble/build extensions/go on foreign holidays/buy pedigree dogs/upgrade the mobile home every year etc - these people have more disposable income than my parents had - but because they chose not to invest in their childrens education, you think they are "less wealthy" - come off it. Enough of the victim mentality.

So what are you suggesting? That all those who can give up luxuries to provide their children with private educations should do so?

What about the rest? Should they just be grateful if the rest of society deign to pay enough taxes to teach their children basic literacy and numeracy? Or should they do without education at all and we'll all go back to the good old days of child labour?

OldNotWIse · 09-10-2012 02:29PM

JustinDee wrote: »

Majority of schools in Ireland are run along with Roman Catholic ethos and this is die-cast. How would this "curtail religious extremism"? Why would my children be forced to attend one of these schools? You're trying to force some warped form of 'equality' when it is anything but.

That's quite a brave assumption. Where should this stop? Why not extend to third-level too? Third-level education is an option, not an necessity. Why subsidise somebody else, right?

So what if your family couldn't afford to? Its nobody else's duty to ensure this comes about but your own family's. Why should their circumstances prevent someone else who has managed to save and make sacrifices from having a private school to choose from? The fact doesn't remain that "somebody can simply afford to". It is their management of means which determines their ability to do so. The term "poorer off" or "wealthy" is so undeniably subjective it cannot credibly form the basis of any argument on this matter.

No, it is not a driving factor to social inequality. Income and how it is managed is far more substantial an effect.

Agree so much with this. My Father grew up in a tenement. My granfather was an alcoholic. They had n-o-t-h-i-n-g...yet he managed to provide for his children. Oh sorry, I forgot, he could "afford" to :rolleyes:

Annabella1 · 09-10-2012 02:30PM

So Labour Party want to introduce system which will turn out to be more expensive to the exchequer Hmmm

OldNotWIse · 09-10-2012 02:32PM

Sleepy wrote: »

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I did not say you specifically for Gods sake.

You quoted me and replied in a single paragraph.

So what are you suggesting? That all those who can give up luxuries to provide their children with private educations should do so?

What about the rest? Should they just be grateful if the rest of society deign to pay enough taxes to teach their children basic literacy and numeracy? Or should they do without education at all and we'll all go back to the good old days of child labour?

I'm not "suggesting" anything - I am stating a fact, that plenty of people who moan about not being able to afford fees for their children actually have more income than my parents had - and clearly different priorities.

I'm not really sure why you think it necessary to start throwing about notions of child labour??

JustinDee · 09-10-2012 02:35PM

Sleepy wrote: »

So what are you suggesting? That all those who can give up luxuries to provide their children with private educations should do so?
What about the rest?

No, they're suggesting that the management of means is important and that the "poorer off" children are not destined to be state school attendees.
"Poorer off" and "wealthy" are subjectively being used here by yourself. A "poorer off" parent can find manage the means to send their kids to private secondary school, the very same as a "wealthy" parent.

Sleepy wrote: »

Should they just be grateful if the rest of society deign to pay enough taxes to teach their children basic literacy and numeracy? Or should they do without education at all and we'll all go back to the good old days of child labour?

Now you're just being melodramatic and silly.

Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

Comments