Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

spank_inferno · 09-10-2012 02:49PM

So Justin... in a nut-shell, are you against parents of children in private education sharing a greater burden of the cost of that education?

Sleepy · 09-10-2012 02:52PM

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.

Think I've already stated on thread that I'm against religion having any place in 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?

Sorry, I don't quite understand you here. Are you suggesting we shouldn't bother paying for education at all?

I'm not arguing against subsidising these schools if that makes financial sense at the moment. I stated that in my first post. I'm ideologically opposed to their very existence but ideology is something that we can't really afford in Ireland at the moment.

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.

My parents probably could have afforded it tbh, but didn't need to: the public school I attended consistently beat the private schools in the area in terms of Leaving Cert results.

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

And if one has no income beyond social welfare for example? How does one manage that income in order to ensure their children's education is as good as one that's being paid thousands a term for privately?

JustinDee wrote: »

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?

I don't see "the alternative hasn't been proven" as a reason to continue a broken system. I see it as someone failing to defend a system that benefits them to the detriment of others.

Look, I'm no bleeding heart socialist. I believe in free market economics, small government and personal responsibility. However, I am in favour of a meritocracy and believe the closest thing we have to a silver bullet in terms of future economic performance is education.

Given the reigns of power how would I pay for the education reforms I'd like to see? Tell the unions to **** themselves and bring all teachers back onto a single pay-scale, higher than the current new starts are receiving yet lower than that the old guard are trying to defend. Statutory redundancies for those who won't accept the new scales.

Grant allowances for genuine extra qualifications whilst scrapping those for having the bare essentials of an Honours Degree and H.Dip.

Consolidate schools to gain economies of scale (easier in a secular education system). Find savings elsewhere in government: merging local authorities into 6-8 regional authorities, consolidate admin functions of various departments, merge some quangos and abolish others outright, reduce many forms of social welfare.

I'd be happy to take a chainsaw to most of our public sector. Education is the future though. We live in the age of globalisation: until the developing world catch up with the rest of us we will never again be competitive at manufacturing things: we need to get further up the food chain and that means R&D, high-skilled services etc.

JustinDee · 09-10-2012 02:57PM

spank_inferno wrote: »

So Justin... in a nut-shell, are you against parents of children in private education sharing a greater burden of the cost of that education?

Why, "spank", risk the education system even further by endangering the existance of those fee-paying institutions in the first place? How does this help? If "greater burden" means a risk to the education system then no is my answer.
The equality applicable here is that all national curriculum education facilities are fairly entitled to per-student subsidy. If they are not, they need not adhere to the national curriculum. What then follows is not what you want.
The state cannot afford the (nigh-on impossible) kind of education system some are rooting for in this thread.

spank_inferno · 09-10-2012 03:02PM

Fine...just so we know where you stand!

I believe those who can afford thousands to send their children to exclusive private schools could probably afford a few percent more.
If they cannot, well the system will have to take care of them like any other child.

We'll agree to disagree.

JustinDee · 09-10-2012 03:07PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Think I've already stated on thread that I'm against religion having any place in schools

Guess what, it already has a place in schools.

Sleepy wrote: »

Sorry, I don't quite understand you here. Are you suggesting we shouldn't bother paying for education at all?

You're either against subsidisation for private education or not. If you support subsidisations for third-level, then you are for it at secondary level surely?

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not arguing against subsidising these schools if that makes financial sense at the moment. I stated that in my first post. I'm ideologically opposed to their very existence but ideology is something that we can't really afford in Ireland at the moment

Sea-change across the board and instilling some sort of unequal equality measure would cause more harm than good.

Sleepy wrote: »

My parents probably could have afforded it tbh, but didn't need to...

See? Being determined "wealthy" or "poorer off" is subjective. That is exactly my point.

Sleepy wrote: »

the public school I attended consistently beat the private schools in the area in terms of Leaving Cert results

The quality of the schools is not under scrutiny here.
If it is, then the tilt also goes the other way too in other areas.

Sleepy wrote: »

And if one has no income beyond social welfare for example? How does one manage that income in order to ensure their children's education is as good as one that's being paid thousands a term for privately?

You've just stated above they need not have to when you mentioned your local school being better in terms of results.

Sleepy wrote: »

Look, I'm no bleeding heart socialist. I believe in free market economics, small government and personal responsibility. However, I am in favour of a meritocracy and believe the closest thing we have to a silver bullet in terms of future economic performance is education

Its been doing okay so far. Why endanger this status quo?

Sleepy wrote: »

Given the reigns of power how would I pay for the education reforms I'd like to see? Tell the unions to **** themselves and bring all teachers back onto a single pay-scale, higher than the current new starts are receiving yet lower than that the old guard are trying to defend. Statutory redundancies for those who won't accept the new scales

Grant allowances for genuine extra qualifications whilst scrapping those for having the bare essentials of an Honours Degree and H.Dip.

Consolidate schools to gain economies of scale (easier in a secular education system). Find savings elsewhere in government: merging local authorities into 6-8 regional authorities, consolidate admin functions of various departments, merge some quangos and abolish others outright, reduce many forms of social welfare.

I'd be happy to take a chainsaw to most of our public sector. Education is the future though. We live in the age of globalisation: until the developing world catch up with the rest of us we will never again be competitive at manufacturing things: we need to get further up the food chain and that means R&D, high-skilled services etc.

Nothing above is realistically conceivable or even affordable. In my opinion anyway.

Einhard · 09-10-2012 03:07PM

I really think this is a classic example of cass warfare. I went to school in a public school, and was happy to do so. If I had kids, it wouldn't cross my mind to have them privately educated. So my opinion is objective. I think thi=s is simply an axample of Labour members pandering to the extreme Left in their party, and seeking to protect their flank from Sinn Fein, the ULA et al.

Why shouldn't parents who pay their taxes and charges derive the same benefit from those taxes and charges as everyone else- namely that the state funds the people who teach their kids? The proposal by some Labour members would effectively mean that such parents would pay for others to go to school, but could derive no benefit from the payments for themselves. That's wholly inequitable in my opinion.

Furthermore, it's not even a serious revenue saving measure. If it was, it would have some merit at least. Instead, cutting the payments would yield no saving for the state, and indeed likely add to the state's education bill. The state pays the salaries for teachers in private schools alright, but capitation isn't paid, and the majority of capital costs and incidental expenditure (broken pipes, boliers etc) is paid for from school funds. If even one private school shut down, then the state would have to accomodate the students in the public system, and would have to finance that placement. It would end up costing more than the status quo.

So I really don't see how this is a flyer. Firstly, it's deeply unfair. And secondly, it makes no financial sense.

JustinDee · 09-10-2012 03:14PM

spank_inferno wrote: »

Fine...just so we know where you stand!

I believe those who can afford thousands to send their children to exclusive private schools could probably afford a few percent more.
If they cannot, well the system will have to take care of them like any other child.

We'll agree to disagree.

How do you determine my family richer than next door's just if I sent my children to a fee-paying school?
Example:
My neighbours have two 4WD vehicles. Are abroad at least twice a year and own a property overseas (via mortgage). One works. The other is homemaker.
They would be choosing to spend their money a certain way and I mine.
I don't drink or smoke. My better half doesn't smoke but occasionally would have a tipple. We both work (hard) and save. Own the one property. Have a car. Currently away on annual holiday now.

Who earns more ie. who is "wealthier" and who is "poorer off"? Why am I subsidising their kids 'free' education?
Nothing against my neighbours, by the way. Love them to bits. Just giving an example.

Farmer Pudsey · 09-10-2012 03:25PM

There are three main type of schools in Ireland.

Government run public schools which recieve totally funding in the form of a caputation grant and complete funding of build teaching etc these are mostly vocational/comprensive/community schools

Non government ran ( mostly by religous groups) public schools these recieve a capuation grant, funding of teachers and lower rates of funding for building etc.

Finally there is the private schools again mostly run by religous groups. There was always a case made for Non catholic reglious schools in that it was the only way childern of families of these ethos's could recieve education within that ethos.

Gennerally the state gaurantees an education to all childern. The mst expensive to the state is the first Gov ran then non Gov ran then private schools.

If all the cost was transferred in the third to schools all that would happen is that 80-90% would either close or transfer to a public school and the government pick up the cost.

There is a certain amount of elitism attached to private schools and some parents make a judgement call to send there kids there just like some parents target rubgy playing or hurling playing schools and others target what appears to be the better school. If we forced parents to bear the full cost the state would only have one or two private schhools as the cost to parents would triple or quadruple.

In reality nobody tax money is used to subisdise private schools the issue really is should the state force parents who wish to send kids to private schools pick up the total cost.

This is an issue that is also raising it head with health Insurance the state dose not charge the full cost of beds etc to private companies as it is finding now the more it charges the greater cost to the state as people are forces to give up there Health Insurance as it become too expensive

ted1 · 09-10-2012 03:30PM

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.

Some kids are plain Ugly, some kids are pretty, the pretty kids tend to get more attention and are more tolerated. should kids be made wear balaclavas to stop any social inequality.

Social inequlaity exists, get over it. Just because the person down the road can't afford a BMW shoudl we all drive the same heap of sh1t?

Kids have to learn social inequality exists, that way they'll realise if they work hard and study hard they can move on the ladder and enjoy a better way of life.

OldNotWIse · 09-10-2012 03:33PM

spank_inferno wrote: »

Fine...just so we know where you stand!

I believe those who can afford thousands to send their children to exclusive private schools could probably afford a few percent more.
If they cannot, well the system will have to take care of them like any other child.

We'll agree to disagree.

Or that people who choose to spend their money on their kids instead of on themselves should have to pay even more?

I'm back from coffee and seems we are all still labouring under the illusion that children who don't go to fee-paying schools have poor parents. Oh dear..

Sleepy · 09-10-2012 03:37PM

JustinDee wrote: »

Guess what, it already has a place in schools.

And as long as it does, I'll have a problem with it.

You're either against subsidisation for private education or not. If you support subsidisations for third-level, then you are for it at secondary level surely?

This is an interesting point. Perhaps the best solution would actually be for the state to get out of providing education at all and simply provide the funding for it? We could all get our kids to do the International Bacalaureate instead...

Sea-change across the board and instilling some sort of unequal equality measure would cause more harm than good.

How would what I propose be an unequal equality measure?

I can see your argument that in the status quo, removal of subvention for those using private schools could be seen as unequal i.e. if your neighbour has more wealth and income than you and avails of state education whilst you pay for private education a difference in capitation could seem unfair. However, when you've opted out of the public education system, I find it strange that you believe you should be entitled to the same level of funding for your own school.

See? Being determined "wealthy" or "poorer off" is subjective. That is exactly my point.

My point would be that not everyone can pay. My parents could have provided me with that opportunity if they'd sacrificed in other areas to do so (at least for secondary school, don't think it would have been an option when I was in primary in the 80's). I could not provide my own children with that opportunity however and while my circumstances stand the chance that I could possibly be able to when they reach secondary (assuming career progression etc.) many, many people do not have any realistic prospect of that.

The quality of the schools is not under scrutiny here.
If it is, then the tilt also goes the other way too in other areas.

You've just stated above they need not have to when you mentioned your local school being better in terms of results.

I'd say quality is exactly the issue. My old school would have been something of an outlier. Why else would anyone avail of private education? To further a kid's chances at wearing the green jersey in rugby? Or set them up in the right circles for a career in politics? Hardly advantages a tax payer should be contributing to and tbh, undesirable things for any citizen to be able to buy imo.

Its been doing okay so far. Why endanger this status quo?

Any improvement requires change and endangers a status quo.

Nothing above is realistically conceivable or even affordable. In my opinion anyway.

Here, I'd largely agree. Without a single-party right-wing government with an massive electoral majority and balls the size of melons, the PS unions would block all of it.

That doesn't mean it's not the right way to go though

ted1 · 09-10-2012 03:37PM

spank_inferno wrote: »

Fine...just so we know where you stand!

I believe those who can afford thousands to send their children to exclusive private schools could probably afford a few percent more.
If they cannot, well the system will have to take care of them like any other child.

We'll agree to disagree.

schools fee cost about 3k, a few extra % would be 100 to 150% more.

you have just showed that you don't understand how the system works.

we don't have private shcolls liek in other countries, our schools are semi private.

OldNotWIse · 09-10-2012 03:37PM

JustinDee wrote: »

How do you determine my family richer than next door's just if I sent my children to a fee-paying school?
Example:
My neighbours have two 4WD vehicles. Are abroad at least twice a year and own a property overseas (via mortgage). One works. The other is homemaker.
They would be choosing to spend their money a certain way and I mine.
I don't drink or smoke. My better half doesn't smoke but occasionally would have a tipple. We both work (hard) and save. Own the one property. Have a car. Currently away on annual holiday now.

Who earns more ie. who is "wealthier" and who is "poorer off"? Why am I subsidising their kids 'free' education?
Nothing against my neighbours, by the way. Love them to bits. Just giving an example.

Very good post. All these people screaming about subsidising forget that their own kids are being subsidised also.
My parents didn't have their first foreign holiday until they were well past their forties - an alien idea to most parents now!

Sleepy · 09-10-2012 03:54PM

ted1 wrote: »

Some kids are plain Ugly, some kids are pretty, the pretty kids tend to get more attention and are more tolerated. should kids be made wear balaclavas to stop any social inequality.

Social inequlaity exists, get over it. Just because the person down the road can't afford a BMW shoudl we all drive the same heap of sh1t?

Kids have to learn social inequality exists, that way they'll realise if they work hard and study hard they can move on the ladder and enjoy a better way of life.

Once again, I'm not arguing for a communist state here. I'm saying that we, as a society, should be aiming to create an environment where a child's chances of moving up that ladder are based on their talent and hard-work rather than on the fact they have the right school tie or that their parents happened to fall on hard times during their education.

Idbatterim · 09-10-2012 03:58PM

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

LOL at this, the people sending their kids to private education are on average you can take it, paying far more tax and getting far less for it! I went to a private school, I can assure you my parents arent wealthy, there were others in my school who werent even middle class, but their parents made sacrifices to send them to that school. One of the main reasons my parents chose to send me to a private school, was the near 3rd world state of many of the local national schools. Not surprising when pretty much all of the education budget goes on wages!

Kids have to learn social inequality exists, that way they'll realise if they work hard and study hard they can move on the ladder and enjoy a better way of life.

Definetly agree with this!

whats fair in life? the CPA, paying bondholders, no cuts to OAP's, being born here as opposed to Sudan or Beverly Hills?

Fairness I suppose thats paying taxes through the nose for life, breaking your b*lls getting an education and working and being ENTITLED to far less than those who have never contributed anything is it?

ted1 · 09-10-2012 04:06PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Once again, I'm not arguing for a communist state here. I'm saying that we, as a society, should be aiming to create an environment where a child's chances of moving up that ladder are based on their talent and hard-work rather than on the fact they have the right school tie or that their parents happened to fall on hard times during their education.

look at the other side of the coin, your pulling kids down the ladder.

If a child is a room, the general ambition of the room is to be a supermarket manger, he is Being pulled down.

if he was in a private school, the general ambition may be to be a trader, broker, doctor, etc.

jank · 09-10-2012 04:10PM

Fancy that, Labour coming out with a proposal that will actually cost the state more and has not real targets or goals in achieving educational outcomes all for the goal of "equality".

Madness.

Idbatterim · 09-10-2012 04:12PM

State-run schools are frequently sending home letters looking for money for art and craft materials, printing costs and I even read recently that some schools are asking that parents send their children to school with their own toilet roll, towels and soap.

There isnt a problem with underfunding in education, there is a problem with over payment, same with the health system!

Gurgle · 09-10-2012 04:20PM

I think this is a Dublin (The Pale anyway) vs everywhere else issue.

Until I went to college I genuinely thought fee-paying schools only existed at all in this country so that protestants had an alternative to catholic run schools. The only ones I knew of were 'Protestant schools', and protestants seemed to be split about 50:50 between those who went to 'normal' (state run catholic) schools and those who went to private schools.

It was even more bizarre to find Belvedere educated rugby heads who qualified for the student grant. I still haven't got my head around that one.

ted1 · 09-10-2012 04:28PM

vanillavanilla wrote: »

State-run schools are frequently sending home letters looking for money for art and craft materials, printing costs and I even read recently that some schools are asking that parents send their children to school with their own toilet roll, towels and soap.

Yet private schools that take in hefty fees from parents are still getting funds from the State.

It is outrageously imbalanced.

semi private schools have fund raisers too. public schools got money to wards building maintenance and the likes, semi private schools do not.

explain where the imbalance is, a public school pupil costs the state more money. On average private school parent pays more taxes. where is the inbalance.

VinLieger · 09-10-2012 05:21PM

vanillavanilla wrote: »

State-run schools are frequently sending home letters looking for money for art and craft materials, printing costs and I even read recently that some schools are asking that parents send their children to school with their own toilet roll, towels and soap.

Yet private schools that take in hefty fees from parents are still getting funds from the State.

It is outrageously imbalanced.

How is it imbalanced? these parents pay the same taxes that go towards education as everyone else as well as fees for the private school, and their children cost the state 3500 less per student.
The imbalance is only there where people who dont like private schools want to see it

09-10-2012 07:49PM

I don't really care if people send there children to a fee paying school or not the question of the government subside is a complex one. However the idea promulgated that all the parents are making sacrifices to send their children to fee paying school is irritating (a) there are non fee paying schools that are as good as the fee paying schools (b) its not a sacrifice its a choice.

Middle class children ( especially girls ) will always do well in school thats just the way it is, the points system may be brutal but its transparent. The the way to do well in school is hard work the kind of work that involves several hours of study each day and that is open to anyone.

ted1 · 09-10-2012 07:54PM

mariaalice wrote: »

I don't really care if people send there children to a fee paying school or not the question of the government subside is a complex one. However the idea promulgated that all the parents are making sacrifices to send their children to fee paying school is irritating (a) there are non fee paying schools that are as good as the fee paying schools (b) its not a sacrifice its a choice.

Middle class children ( especially girls ) will always do well in school thats just the way it is, the points system may bebrutal but its transparent. The the way to do well in school is hard work the kind of work that involves several hours of study each day and that is open to anyone.

It's more than doing well. I have dyrphasixia and would have not got the attention or help I got in a public school. I'm currently studying a masters at night and have a level 8 honours degree in electronic engineering.

kodoherty93 · 09-10-2012 07:58PM

mariaalice wrote: »

I don't really care if people send there children to a fee paying school or not the question of the government subside is a complex one. However the idea promulgated that all the parents are making sacrifices to send their children to fee paying school is irritating (a) there are non fee paying schools that are as good as the fee paying schools (b) its not a sacrifice its a choice.

Middle class children ( especially girls ) will always do well in school thats just the way it is, the points system may be brutal but its transparent. The the way to do well in school is hard work the kind of work that involves several hours of study each day and that is open to anyone.

Have you ever been to a fee paying school. The parents aren't driving 2012 BMWs or just got back from a weekend in spain.

Having gone to a fee paying school the average student has but parents working to pay fees.( pay more taxes than one parent working). They generally are a public sector workers wanting their children to have a better future. Most of my year didn't go abroad doing the summer and money was often tight for some.

The work ethic in a fee paying school is competitive students want the best grades possible not that public school students don't.

doc_17 · 09-10-2012 08:00PM

Just a quick question....

Why do parents send their child to fee paying schools?

Is it to get a "better education"? How does going to a fee paying school lead to a "better education"?

Is it smaller classes?

Is it because of better facilities?

The answers should tell you whether it not fee charging schools get too much money (or not) from the state.

09-10-2012 08:13PM

Both my daughters went to a non fee paying girls school it is a very academic school in a mostly middle class area every year some of the pupils got Trinity exhibition scholarships. Among my daughters friends from school are a Doctor, Physiotherapist, and Primary school teacher. Is the Idea that in order to do the best for you children you need to send them to a fee paying school and some how you are making a noble scarifies that I find irritating.

Sending you child to a fee paying school is a choice parent make thats all.

09-10-2012 08:24PM

By the way I am not against fee paying school its the narrative of sacrifice around the debate that I don't like plus parent need to honest as to why they are sending their children to a fee paying school ( especially their sons )

ted1 · 09-10-2012 08:50PM

doc_17 wrote: »

Just a quick question....

Why do parents send their child to fee paying schools?

Is it to get a "better education"? How does going to a fee paying school lead to a "better education"?

Is it smaller classes?

Is it because of better facilities?

The answers should tell you whether it not fee charging schools get too much money (or not) from the state.

a better all round education. smaller class sizes, better facilities, broader subject choice etc,etc.

ardmacha · 09-10-2012 08:51PM

There isnt a problem with underfunding in education,

There is and there certainly has been. Irish spending per student has been one of the lowest in the OECD as a proportion of GDP in almost every year and even usinfg the more reasonable GNP measure the figure was never high. Given reasonable wages this meant little money for other things, because the overall envelope of spending was low.

Obviously your private education wasn't strong on analysis.

sarumite · 09-10-2012 09:11PM

ardmacha wrote: »

There is and there certainly has been. Irish spending per student has been one of the lowest in the OECD as a proportion of GDP in almost every year and even usinfg the more reasonable GNP measure the figure was never high. Given reasonable wages this meant little money for other things, because the overall envelope of spending was low.

That seems to go against what the IMF say according to the Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0910/breaking33.html

"The organisation said reforms of key public services were needed to underpin savings in the medium term. It said Ireland was spending “significantly more” than the OECD average on health and education but that performance in the sector remained only around the OECD average."

Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

Comments