Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

Sleepy wrote: »

To be totally honest, the education I received would be superior to that received by most (public or private) so it's not an inferiority thing. The condescending tone of JustinDee's posts despite the lack of any actual arguments in them just gets my back up tbh.


There's no need for violins, we get it, your argument has been accepted and no one has argued otherwise: some people on modest incomes scrimp and scrape in order to afford the best education for their children. I've acknowledged that repeatedly in this thread.

What I've yet to see you acknowledge is the fact that, even were they to attempt to mimic what your parents did for you, many people couldn't achieve that.

Maybe you're fine with an unequal society. I certainly don't consider all people to be equal myself: some people make a positive contribution to society others damage it and others still have no impact one way or the other.

Should we, however, allow a child to be condemned by the actions of their parents?

In my opinion, the provision of a high quality education is the best thing a society can do to maximise the number of those in society who are net contributors and provides those children born on the wrong side of any socio-economic line one chooses to draw the opportunity to work their way across that line.

In an unequal world, an education system based on equality of access and achievement by merit seems the best means of allowing that imo.

True, in an ideal world everyone would start out on the same platform, and it certainly is something to aspire to. I just think that whenever a debate like this rages, it's used as a sounding board for people who simply do not like private schools and want to have a go at them.
Have a look back at all the comments being trotted out about "Daddy's Business College" and "making connections" etc - at best its insulting and at worst its simply rubbish. I admit I went to school with some toffee nosed b1tches (and couldnt get away from them fast enough to be honest) but I think (and hope) that they are still stuck in the same silly circles trying to impress others and get ahead by standing on other people, but in reality getting nowhere at all.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think you have some inferiority issues tbh. I'm not trying to be mean (we're all adults here) but you seem hell bent on putting people into boxes all the time - in your mind we have all been born with silver spoons in our mouths and nothing anyone tells you will change your mind.

I mean, I've been completely honest here. "Admitting" (since it appears to be almost criminal now) to having attended a fee-paying school. I have also explained how my Father grew up in a tenement with an alcoholic father who drank every penney that came into the house. I have described how he worked (in a physically demanding job) for 50 years to provide the best he could for his children. He is now crippled and facing into a knee and possible hip replacement. I told how my parents did not go on foreign holidays until they were in their forties. We didn't build ridiculous extensions onto the house or change the car every year. I remember a time when my parents did not have carpet on their floors. When we were kids my mam used to put a superser in the bedroom for 20 minutes before me and my brother went to bed for gods sake.

I didn't say all this to play the worlds smallest violin on a wednesday afternoon but I am simply trying to make the points that:
1. NOT everyone who goes to a fee-paying school is born with a silver spoon in their mouth
2. Even if your parents send you to the best school, its no substitute for hard work and ability.

Of course, all of this has been ignored. Labels are much more convenient when one has an agenda.

With all due respect your personal circumstances are irrelevant to the debate. There will always be people who make huge sacrifices for their children.

There are those that have moved to Dublin so that their seriously ill children can get regular medical treatment in Crumlin or Temple Street.
There are those who get up a 5 a.m. to bring their children to swimming pools to help their dream of going to the Olympics.
There are those who give up their jobs because they need to be home because their child with a mild learning disability needs help with their homework.
There are those who spend a fortune on music lessons because their child demonstrates a natural musical ability.

Now your parents made sacrifices but so did all those others. Why should the taxpayers subsidise your parents sacrifices and not subsidise other parents' sacrifices? I hope you can see now why the argument of parents making sacrifices is irrelevant.

The question is quite simple. Can the State afford to keep subsidising parents (whether or not they make sacrifices) who can afford to send their children to private schools when there are children out there with special needs and children out there with medical needs who are suffering as a result of cutbacks? The answer, for me anyway, is that there are greater priorities than the private schools of Ireland.

JustinDee wrote: »

The scaremongering is coming from the class warriors, not the schools which are already under enough financial strife as it is.


No, you are not "fairly" justified in assuming so nor to assume that the majority of the private schools in question are "South Dublin private schools".


Meanwhile back on terra firma, fee-paying schools do exist.


Great, then I'd suggest you ditch the class warrior hyperbole such as your assumption generalism above.

There is no point discussing this issue with you. You make no reasoned arguments, you dismiss references to South Dublin even though the facts show there is a disporportionate amount of private schools in South Dublin etc.

The scaremongering is a case in point. Principals have been all over the airwaves (together with Mary Mitchell-O'connor) telling us of the ridiculously unproven silly doomsday scenario of all the private schools going public. That is the scaremongering - give us our subsidy or it will cost you more. no similar scaremongering on the other side yet you come out with the ridiculous statement above that "The scaremongering is coming from the class warriors", come on unless you are trying to raise a laugh, surely there is a better argument than that.

JustinDee wrote: »

It is a fiscal fact and effect, not even going into how the situation can worsen if any of these schools were to close down due to financial reasons.
Emotional blackmail about an undefined "poorer off" section of society not being able to send their kids to fee-paying schools is just a string plucker.

It is not a fiscal fact and effect. Firstly, can you show me a country in the world where there is not a demand for private schooling in the most affluent suburb of its capital city? You cannot, even it is only for children of the elite and of foreign diplomats in the capital city of a third world country, there is always such a demand.

Secondly, as I have pointed out earlier in the thread on a number of occasions, assuming a 20% increase in the cost of schooling such children in the public system where the private schools to close, it would require 83.33% to close to make the cost bigger to the state. I cannot see that happening.

Yes, there will be pupils at the margin and even schools at the margin which will no longer be able to avail of private education but for the majority it will continue. But even that assumes the doomsday scenario of all funding being cut off. I confidently predict that a more modest proposal along the lines of what I have suggested (30% cut over 3 years) will see over 90% of pupils and 90% of schools continue as private.

The fiscal facts are these. The country is broke. The education budget must be cut. Either the parents who can afford to send their children to private schools must take a cut or someone else must take a cut. That someone else would be children with special needs, children in schools with no indoor toilets, children in prefabs etc. They are not "undefined "poorer-off" sections of society", (a cliche if ever I hear one), they are real people. I know which group I would choose to take the cuts and that is not "emotional blackmail", it is fair.