Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

Sleepy · 10-10-2012 08:24PM

JustinDee wrote: »

Freedom to choose where a child attends. Not a statistic placed in an homogenous 'education facility'.

Or in other words, freedom to decide some children are more equal than others.

It isn't, as can be seen by your inability to solidly identify certain examples befitting your two criteria "wealthy" and "poorer off".

For the purposes of this discussion, one can simply distinguish between those who can afford to pay school fees and those who cannot. I gave some examples of those likely to be in the latter category: welfare recipients, minimum wage workers, single parents, those who have suffered large falls in income due to the recession and are now struggling with mortgages they could once afford easily on homes in negative equity.

Examples of the former, those on decent salaries with no mortgages / rent, politicians, doctors, senior civil servants, fund managers, large farmers, entrepeneurs who's businesses are doing well etc.

However, since we're discussing absolutes, those in the middle aren't actually relevant. The point is that some can afford fee paying schools and others can't. For some, it may be a result of their own actions, for others it may not be.

Far from alright, Jack. Working on it and managing to keep eyes above water level.
By the way, you forgot to mention those who can pay but won't pay and rather receive. Then again you can't decide whether or not they're "wealthy" or whatever.

Working out more expensive and irreversible than the status quo is the better option? I could add more but it would only "get your back up".

Why not suggest ways of improving the status quo then? What we have at present, is an education system that spends the majority of it's budget on wages, is dominated by a religion with a horrific record when it comes to children, where grade inflation has been happening almost unquestioned while outcomes have deteriorated and is utterly inconsistent.

What's being proposed is a cut to the schools most able to afford a cut. What I'm suggesting is a model we should aspire to. What you seem to be proposing is that we keep things as they are whilst abusing those suggesting alternatives.

It is both absolutely unaffordable in Ireland and already proven unachieveable by examples in other countries already mentioned even with their circumstances being even more favourable.

Well, why not see what we can afford? What better management of the Dept. of Education's budget could achieve?

Don't be so chippy. This isn't a case of "so you think you're better than me?" but rather you still being unable to prove this point of yours.

The point that private schools provide an unfair advantage to the children of those who can afford to pay for them? Do I really need to prove that? I'd have thought their very existence proves that tbh.

OMD · 10-10-2012 08:39PM

Sleepy wrote: »

The point that private schools provide an unfair advantage to the children of those who can afford to pay for them? Do I really need to prove that? I'd have thought their very existence proves that tbh.

I think you do need to prove it. Certainly the best schools in the country may be private schools but then students attending these schools already have advantages in life. You need to show it is the school rather than the up bringing that makes the difference. Also clearly all private schools are not better than all public schools. So in many cases people pay extra for an education that is not as good as a free education at a different school

10-10-2012 09:15PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Or in other words, freedom to decide some children are more equal than others.

Why should anyone's children be sacrificed on the altar of ideology? It's not about equality or inequality, it's about individual choice.

Sleepy wrote: »

For the purposes of this discussion, one can simply distinguish between those who can afford to pay school fees and those who cannot.

No you cannot. And why?

Sleepy wrote: »

I gave some examples of those likely to be in the latter category: welfare recipients, minimum wage workers, single parents, those who have suffered large falls in income due to the recession and are now struggling with mortgages they could once afford easily on homes in negative equity.

Here's an example of why. One of my neighbours sends her daughter to a fee charging school. She's a single mother in a part time job, and she's been unemployed and on welfare during the time her daughter's been at the school. She doesn't smoke, drink, or own a car. I can't recall when she last took a holiday. Her over-riding expenditure priority is the school fees. That's her choice. It might be a daft choice, or one that the rest of us wouldn't take, but it is her choice and she doesn't live in the former USSR.

And there are others like her. So for the purposes of this discussion, who should you be distinguishing or focusing on? I'll elaborate a little further below.

Sleepy wrote: »

However, since we're discussing absolutes, those in the middle aren't actually relevant. The point is that some can afford fee paying schools and others can't. For some, it may be a result of their own actions, for others it may not be.

Those in the middle are the most relevant of all. Why should you be permitted to penalise someone for the way they choose to spend their money? Do you also propose to take other things for which you have a distaste and penalise people for spending money on them? Medical insurance? Foreign holidays? High-end home entertainment systems? BMWs? Why aren't you picking on those as well or instead?

Sleepy wrote: »

Why not suggest ways of improving the status quo then? What we have at present, is an education system that spends the majority of it's budget on wages, is dominated by a religion with a horrific record when it comes to children, where grade inflation has been happening almost unquestioned while outcomes have deteriorated and is utterly inconsistent.

Yeah, right on, change the system. In the meantime the system is what it is, and some people are choosing differently. What do they do? Hope that the brave new world comes around sooner rather than later, while putting up with some half-baked substitute for utopia in the meantime?

Sleepy wrote: »

What's being proposed is a cut to the schools most able to afford a cut.

What you should be proposing is to "cut" the people most able to afford a cut. And how do you do that? Why, through increased taxation, of course.

Sleepy wrote: »

What I'm suggesting is a model we should aspire to.

Me, I'd rather aspire to getting more tax from big earners and gas-guzzling drivers. But if you think aspiring to penalising people for choice is a good idea, carry on. It is, after all, a free country.

Sleepy wrote: »

The point that private schools provide an unfair advantage to the children of those who can afford to pay for them? Do I really need to prove that? I'd have thought their very existence proves that tbh.

Yes, you really need to prove that. If you just assert that it just must be so, then you're engaging in the sociological equivalent of mumbo jumbo.

digzy · 10-10-2012 09:24PM

i love the way this topic brings out all the 'anti-poshers' outa the woodwork! There's a stereotype of these pupils like the ivor character from republic of telly.

The points been made already re what would happen if all these kids reverted to the 'public' system. i dont know the sums either re subvention. However, lets remember that the parents of these kids paid for the fees from their after tax income. most of the kids probably come from middle income families. most of the kids i knew at private schools were from modest backgrounds-teachers, nurses, farmers etc.

maybe the state will call their bluff and hope that the parents will make up the difference!

krd · 10-10-2012 09:43PM

Gurgle wrote: »

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.

I'll give you a clue. Someone I know, they live in a posh part of Dublin. Their kids all went to private school. But they haven't had a job since the early 90s.

Their brother in law is a wealth surgeon, and he paid for the guy's kids schooling, and he also does things like pay for the guy's golf club membership, car, that kind of thing.

Scofflaw · 10-10-2012 09:44PM

OMD wrote: »

I think you do need to prove it. Certainly the best schools in the country may be private schools but then students attending these schools already have advantages in life. You need to show it is the school rather than the up bringing that makes the difference. Also clearly all private schools are not better than all public schools. So in many cases people pay extra for an education that is not as good as a free education at a different school

Indeed, having one's kids at a private school could be primarily a display issue, a way of showing one's own social status. It is something that needs proving.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JustinDee · 10-10-2012 09:52PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Or in other words, freedom to decide some children are more equal than others

Its not your call or anyone else's if I juggle everything I can to enrol my kids in a school that I deem better for them.

Sleepy wrote: »

For the purposes of this discussion, one can simply distinguish between those who can afford to pay school fees and those who cannot. I gave some examples of those likely to be in the latter category: welfare recipients, minimum wage workers, single parents, those who have suffered large falls in income due to the recession and are now struggling with mortgages they could once afford easily on homes in negative equity

No, you can't and didn't. When it suits your ilk, those who can but don't count among the numbers of "poorer off". On other occasions such as now, they're among the "wealthy".

Sleepy wrote: »

Examples of the former, those on decent salaries with no mortgages / rent, politicians, doctors, senior civil servants, fund managers, large farmers, entrepeneurs who's businesses are doing well etc

According to your previous posts, I'm of the former yet I've got a mortgage, a 97 reg'd car and my home is in negative equity, that old favourite chestnut of the dissenter as if everyone needed to realise an asset ASAP or get further loans.

Sleepy wrote: »

However, since we're discussing absolutes, those in the middle aren't actually relevant. The point is that some can afford fee paying schools and others can't. For some, it may be a result of their own actions, for others it may not be

They most certainly are. You're just ignoring them when it suits you and including them on other occasions that it suits.

Sleepy wrote: »

Why not suggest ways of improving the status quo then? What we have at present, is an education system that spends the majority of it's budget on wages, is dominated by a religion with a horrific record when it comes to children, where grade inflation has been happening almost unquestioned while outcomes have deteriorated and is utterly inconsistent

First thing you do if in a position to affect, is stop f***ing about with suggestions to gauge a reaction then retract the proposal. The last cut proposed was of guidance councillors at schools, for example. The reason this didn't go through is teachers were saying they had enough on their plates as it was and didn't want to have this remit added to their own. Even a suggested fractional payment on top of their wages was rebuked. This would have still yielded considerable budgetary savings.

Sleepy wrote: »

What's being proposed is a cut to the schools most able to afford a cut . . . etc etc

This, as has been pointed out time and time again to you, is not the case. How can a school struggling as it is, afford to have further cuts?

Sleepy wrote: »

Well, why not see what we can afford? What better management of the Dept. of Education's budget could achieve?

The pipe dream you punt for is far from affordable. You appear to want to risk existing schools just to prove a point or threshold now *sigh* . . .

Sleepy wrote: »

The point that private schools provide an unfair advantage to the children of those who can afford to pay for them? Do I really need to prove that? I'd have thought their very existence proves that tbh.

Yes, you need to prove that. Your last sentence is the fault of argument in many a pro-agendaic opinion.

krd · 10-10-2012 10:04PM

digzy wrote: »

i love the way this topic brings out all the 'anti-poshers' outa the woodwork!

*cough*.....What are you saying?.....That people who didn't go to private schools are wood lice?

That's what you think?....I know it is....I know your type.

The points been made already re what would happen if all these kids reverted to the 'public' system.

They would still be posh schools.

The state funds these schools as much as it funds schools of a similar size that are non-fee paying. The extra cash is used for extra resources - and most importantly, to keep the riff raff out.

i dont know the sums either re subvention.

They receive the same funding as if they were non-fee paying schools of the same size. The state pays the teachers wages (as far as I am aware, the teachers do not get a top up from the fees - but extra resources would be funded. )

In a nutshell. They're funded just like ordinary schools, but the parents top-up for exclusivity and extra resources. But mostly the exclusivity.

However, lets remember that the parents of these kids paid for the fees from their after tax income.

Invariably, they have a higher income (the kind of income that can afford private schools) because of their social class.

You can get all the qualifications you like - but the final hurdle to getting a career that will pay well, will be the "soft skills" test - are you the right "fit" for the job. That selection is made on the basis of class.

maybe the state will call their bluff and hope that the parents will make up the difference!

What will happen, most of the fee paying schools will become public, and the ones left in business will become ultra exclusive. And then in a few years people will be scratching their heads wondering why every government minister, senior civil servant, surgeon, state gouging barrister, were all in the same class at school.

Scofflaw · 10-10-2012 10:05PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed, having one's kids at a private school could be primarily a display issue, a way of showing one's own social status. It is something that needs proving.

Cough: http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/wms-parcel-parents/

New research from North Carolina State University, Brigham Young University and the University of California, Irvine finds that parental involvement is a more significant factor in a child’s academic performance than the qualities of the school itself.

Yup...needs proving.

cordially,
Scofflaw

krd · 10-10-2012 10:11PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed, having one's kids at a private school could be primarily a display issue, a way of showing one's own social status. It is something that needs proving.

What is the cost of not displaying?

If people think you are a knacker, they will treat you like a knacker.

It's an ingroup outgroup thing.

Ostentatious displays are often a way of saying to the outgroup, I am powerful, I belong to a powerful group, I can really hurt you. And saying to the ingroup, I am one of you, we look after each other.

There are material reasons for these displays. It's not just performing to some insane non-existent audience in their imagination.

Idbatterim · 10-10-2012 10:20PM

Free education is provided by the state, so if you choose not to avail of that, why should the state subsidise your choice?

the state will be funding your choice one way or another! just more so if you opt for a national school

JustinDee · 10-10-2012 10:23PM

krd wrote: »

Invariably, they have a higher income (the kind of income that can afford private schools) because of their social class

As has been indicated already, "they" do not have a higher income than those not enrolling children in fee-paying schools.
There is no blanket "they". "They" can be from a broad spectrum of society. How "they" manage their money is the difference. Not some stereotypical tosh about 'the rich' and 'the poor'.

Ffs.

krd · 10-10-2012 10:29PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

the state will be funding your choice one way or another! just more so if you opt for a national school

No, the funding will be exactly the same.

The social exclusionist schools may either cut some staff - or try to raise funds another way, but they get the same funding as the national schools.

The fees just pay for something extra. Exclusivity. Exclusion. Social exclusion. Economic exclusion.

Exclusivity.

Scofflaw · 10-10-2012 10:42PM

krd wrote: »

What is the cost of not displaying?

If people think you are a knacker, they will treat you like a knacker.

It's an ingroup outgroup thing.

Ostentatious displays are often a way of saying to the outgroup, I am powerful, I belong to a powerful group, I can really hurt you. And saying to the ingroup, I am one of you, we look after each other.

There are material reasons for these displays. It's not just performing to some insane non-existent audience in their imagination.

Sure - not a point I particularly need persuading on. It's also perhaps the case that people who are pleased with themselves send their child to a school that will inculcate similar behaviour - so a lot of it is about marking one's social identity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Farmer Pudsey · 10-10-2012 10:52PM

The biggest influence on a child's education is there parents not the school they go to. When at primary school if a child parent's do not make the effort to make sure they do there homework, read with them, attend parents teachers meetings etc. The next is the childs ability and attutide after that there is the social fabric they come from.

Part of the reason that Barristers and Consultants childern do well is unfortunatly is genetic. Yes money helps and the network that they build up in second level and university helps.

If tomorrow morning we stoped all subsidy's to fee paying school who would be disadvantaged. Not the very wealty they could still afford it. Rather it would be the parents who make scarfice's for to send there childern to fee school. There are varied reasons why parents do this some because they percieve that the Education is better, some beacause there child may have a special requirement and some because they think the local school is of poor quality.

Education has never been equal even in non fee school ( very few schools are non fee paying) there is discrimation where schools discrimate in there selection policy using educational ability or specialist selection's criteria. Some parent caught in this situation choose to send there child to a fee paying school.

These schools do not recieve a subsidity or a caputation grand rather the state pays the teachers wages as far as i know it is this and only this they pay. The pupil teacher ration that the department uses is 10% higher for feepaying schools approx 21/1 rather than 19/1 in non fee paying schools. So the government is saving about 5K on average on teachers wages and the capuatation grant as well as the building cost of schools.

What would happen if it was reduced the one's would mostly go into the public system and most of the one's outside Dublin would close. The schools in dublin would then use a selection policy that enable them to more or less maintain there status.

By the way I did not go to a fee paying school nor do my childern. But I respect parents right to make choices and scarfices for there childern wellbeing and education

Kitty113 · 10-10-2012 11:07PM

That should be done away with. The rich children should have to mix with the not-so-fortunate children. I went to a public school and got a perfectly good education. Private schools are an absolute fortune to attend, so how come the teachers are being paid by the state? Surely the expenses paid by the parents of the pupils would cover the teachers salary? 96 million for private schools is a joke, put that to public schools and actually give children the free education they're supposed to be getting!!

Godge · 10-10-2012 11:18PM

OMD wrote: »

Run that past me again. If it costs 20% more to educate a child who transfers from private to public system (it costs more as you are ignoring capital costs) that means for every child that transfers the cost to the state increases. So even if no schools close the cost to the state increases. If 83% of private schools closed the cost to the state would be massive.

Simple equation. NB Using made-up figures to illustrate.

Say cost to the state of subsidising private schools €100m.
Say 10,000 pupils in private schools. Cost to state of each pupil €10,000.
For every pupil that transfers costs go up by 20% so cost to the state of each pupil that transfers is €12,000.

Abolish subvention to private schools. State saves €100m. Private schools double fees. Michael O'Leary and his ilk continue to pay increased fee, so do barristers, judges, doctors and businessmen. However, 60% of pupils transfer to State system. Cost to the state 6,000*€12,000 = €72m. State makes net saving of €28m by abolishing subsidy.

Problem: Shock to the system and capital costs.
Solution: Cut more slowly. Cut 10% off subsidy. Private schools increase fees by 10%. State saves €10m. 100 transfer to state system. Cost is €1.2m. State net saving is €8.8m. Repeat year 2 and 3.

Result: Harder for private school lobby group (very strong) to argue against. Less of a shock to the system. Less transfer rate etc.

krd · 10-10-2012 11:21PM

JustinDee wrote: »

As has been indicated already, "they" do not have a higher income than those not enrolling children in fee-paying schools.
There is no blanket "they". "They" can be from a broad spectrum of society.

No. This is simply not true. Most people with children would not be able to afford the 300 or 600 minimum a month to send their children to private schools. Sutton Park €8,000, Columba's Rathfarmham, €12,000

What planet are you on?

How "they" manage their money is the difference.

You're joking.....You have to be joking........

Many couples with children, if both are working, they're often earning well under 30k. One whole wage goes on rent or mortgage. The other wage goes on food and clothing for two adults, and let's say two children. Electricity, car (even if it's a banger it will still cost), other bills. They would not be able to afford to privately educate their children - and people are really clinging on, with very little disposable income. They really aren't pissing it up against a wall - they don't have it.

But you have these people. Wife, a nursing manager on 45k. Husband, "channel" manager or something, earning 60k. And they feel so hard done by. And they think everyone has a gross income in excess of a 100k. And that they can send their kids to private schools because they "manage" their money better.

Better management. That's what it is. The managerial classes.

Not some stereotypical tosh about 'the rich' and 'the poor'.

Ffs.

What?.........Are you trying the social amphibian act now.

The biggest decider of economic outcomes in Ireland is social class. And sweet jesus I have been through it with the pricks. Working in places where it was an episode of Upstairs Downstairs every hour, of every day, of every bloody week.

To paraphrase von Clausewitz, fee paying schools are class war by other means.

I will tell you a little cheat some people pull. Instead of sending their kids through private school all the way. They just wait for the last two years - so the kid gets to put the fancy pants school on their CV, has hopefully learned the pompous accent in that time, and the doors will be opened for them.

jank · 11-10-2012 12:40AM

Sleepy wrote: »

Or in other words, freedom to decide some children are more equal than others.

I keep hearing that this idea should be in the interests of equality but that itself should not be the aim, the aim should be better educational opportunities for everyone!

jank · 11-10-2012 12:54AM

Sleepy wrote: »

The "freedom to choose" how one's children are educated is something of a dangerous path to go down imo: it can lead to creationism being taught as fact, Canon or Sharia law being taught to be more valid than that of the state etc.

So you don't want parent to chose what type of education their children should have, would you ban all religious schools even if totally paid for by the parents?

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd rather see attempts to raise the outcomes of education in low socio-economic areas than to simply write those schools and their students off and ship the better students off to the private schools on scholarships.

And how would we do that? I'll tell how we what wouldn't work, abolishing state subsidies for private schools

Sleepy wrote: »

One focus should be on attracting good teachers to these areas. Being harder environments to teach in, the better teachers can naturally be expected to compete for, and win, teaching positions in nicer neighbourhoods. I'd certainly see this as a more fitting use of an incentive in the form of an allowance than the current Islands/ Gaelscoil allowances teachers are entitled to claim.

Spend more money then on teaching? How do you quantify that? Are you saying that getting a student from a well to do area an A in English is better than getting a student from a broken home a C?

Sleepy wrote: »

How about a "social equalisation mechanism" similar to that currently used in Health Insurance? All voluntary contributions (including private fees) collected gets pooled centrally and issued back to the schools on a per capita basis? or is held in a fund to be applied to in order to bring school buildings up to an agreed standard?

I don't think we want to model our education system on the health system in this country, madness!

11-10-2012 12:56AM

krd wrote: »

.....but they get the same funding as the national schools.

They don't. They get a lower level of funding than schools in the free scheme.

I'm not complaining about that, by the way. I'm just pointing out that your observation was inaccurate.

K-9 · 11-10-2012 01:16AM

Deleted User wrote: »

They don't. They get a lower level of funding than schools in the free scheme.

I'm not complaining about that, by the way. I'm just pointing out that your observation was inaccurate.

Obviously they get a lower level or we really would have a scandal. They get about 4k a year per student.

Sleepy · 11-10-2012 08:22AM

jank wrote: »

So you don't want parent to chose what type of education their children should have, would you ban all religious schools even if totally paid for by the parents?

Absolutely. Religious indoctrination is possibly the very antithesis of education and, as such, has no place in our education system. If parents want to indoctrinate their children, it should be done through privately funded Sunday schools / indoctrination centres.

And how would we do that? I'll tell how we what wouldn't work, abolishing state subsidies for private schools.

Spend more money then on teaching? How do you quantify that? Are you saying that getting a student from a well to do area an A in English is better than getting a student from a broken home a C?

One suggestion I gave in this thread would be an adjustment in teachers pay-scales that awarded allowances to those teaching in lower socio-economic areas: attempt to entice some of the better teachers into these schools.

Another might be to have the schools provide all learning materials needed (books, copies etc.). The purchasing power of the Dept. of Education combined with less tolerance for "new editions" every 2 years and a principle of re-use could keep the costs of this down.

Breakfast and Homework clubs seem to have a positive effect in many of these areas.

How can we pay for this? Tackle teacher's wages properly (the current two tier system is farcical). Stop paying educational allowances to those merely qualified to be there. Scrap some of the sillier allowances (Teaching through Irish, Gaeltacht Grant, Special Allowances payable to teachers appointed before 1987 in Comprehensive Schools, Supervision and Substitution etc).

Scrap children's allowance and divert a good percentage of that money into direct provision of education.

Better allocation of existing funding would improve outcomes. It just requires the political will to do so.

I don't think we want to model our education system on the health system in this country, madness!

That's a nice sound-bite but it doesn't argue against the suggestion in any way.

Scofflaw · 11-10-2012 08:25AM

Godge wrote: »

Simple equation. NB Using made-up figures to illustrate.

Say cost to the state of subsidising private schools €100m.
Say 10,000 pupils in private schools. Cost to state of each pupil €10,000.
For every pupil that transfers costs go up by 20% so cost to the state of each pupil that transfers is €12,000.

Abolish subvention to private schools. State saves €100m. Private schools double fees. Michael O'Leary and his ilk continue to pay increased fee, so do barristers, judges, doctors and businessmen. However, 60% of pupils transfer to State system. Cost to the state 6,000*€12,000 = €72m. State makes net saving of €28m by abolishing subsidy.

Problem: Shock to the system and capital costs.
Solution: Cut more slowly. Cut 10% off subsidy. Private schools increase fees by 10%. State saves €10m. 100 transfer to state system. Cost is €1.2m. State net saving is €8.8m. Repeat year 2 and 3.

Result: Harder for private school lobby group (very strong) to argue against. Less of a shock to the system. Less transfer rate etc.

With the right figures it's always going to be possible to make that look like a good outcome for the State. The question is whether the figures that make it right are the right figures.

cordially,
Scofflaw

OldNotWIse · 11-10-2012 08:40AM

Godge wrote: »

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.

My parents sacrifices ARE relevant because they illustrate the fact that I was not simply born with a silver spoon in my mouth - something a lot of people on here have problems believing.

OldNotWIse · 11-10-2012 08:46AM

JustinDee wrote: »

Any school teaching national curriculum is entitled to subsidy per head studying. ANY school, regardless of status.

Exactly. Also, people seem to be under the impression that its only parents of public school students paying tax and "subsidising" private schools- we all pay tax (well those of us who work) hence we all subsidise all schools. This, to me is fair. After that, if you want to pay more, that's your right. And yes, private schools get smaller levels of funding than public ones.

Farmer Pudsey · 11-10-2012 09:28AM

Sleepy wrote: »

Absolutely. Religious indoctrination is possibly the very antithesis of education and, as such, has no place in our education system. If parents want to indoctrinate their children, it should be done through privately funded Sunday schools / indoctrination centres.

One suggestion I gave in this thread would be an adjustment in teachers pay-scales that awarded allowances to those teaching in lower socio-economic areas: attempt to entice some of the better teachers into these schools.

Another might be to have the schools provide all learning materials needed (books, copies etc.). The purchasing power of the Dept. of Education combined with less tolerance for "new editions" every 2 years and a principle of re-use could keep the costs of this down.

Breakfast and Homework clubs seem to have a positive effect in many of these areas.

How can we pay for this? Tackle teacher's wages properly (the current two tier system is farcical). Stop paying educational allowances to those merely qualified to be there. Scrap some of the sillier allowances (Teaching through Irish, Gaeltacht Grant, Special Allowances payable to teachers appointed before 1987 in Comprehensive Schools, Supervision and Substitution etc).

Scrap children's allowance and divert a good percentage of that money into direct provision of education.

Better allocation of existing funding would improve outcomes. It just requires the political will to do so.

That's a nice sound-bite but it doesn't argue against the suggestion in any way.

Most of what you suggest is more applicable to the primary system rather that the post primary where fees pays schools exist. Teachers wages are protected by CP so are not available and I cannot see any extra money being available.
The state already diverts extra funds to DES schools if the state provides all books/learning material the school books companies would be delighted as all parents would want there ''litte dears'' have new books every time a different book was required.

The education system is already well funded allocating more resources will not improve outcomes to any great extent. Maybe yes giving teachers a pay incentive to work in these schools might help however most of these schools have lower pupil teacher ratios that normal.

As in an earlier post i stated that the biggest influence on a child education is there parents and the willingness of those parents to scarfice time and often money to provide a better outcome for there childern. If parents choose to spend money and time in the pub rather that with there childern there is very littlr that the state can do to change that.

The nanny state has and is proving to not be of much help

JustinDee · 11-10-2012 09:33AM

krd wrote: »

No. This is simply not true. Most people with children would not be able to afford the 300 or 600 minimum a month to send their children to private schools. Sutton Park €8,000, Columba's Rathfarmham, €12,000

You're generalising. I already gave not one but two examples showing that this is not a case of polemics in society. Go back through the thread and have a read then try to tell me that those who can and who cannot enrol in fee-paying facilities depends on the simple matter of being 'rich' and 'poor'. If a daily smoker for example (again) gave up smoking for three years, that's more than €3000 saved each year. As a child enters secondary school aged 12, savings can be spread thinner still so I'd say that's a case of "Sutton here we come!", wouldn't you? Its certainly a day pupil well covered for King's Hospital, St Andrews or High School.

krd wrote: »

What planet are you on?

Don't be so childish and melodramatic if you want an earnest and honest discussion on the subject.

krd wrote: »

You're joking.....You have to be joking........

Many couples with children, if both are working, they're often earning well under 30k . . . etc etc

Not joking . . . no, I'm not joking . . .

See earlier examples I gave. Not everyone can afford but then again, show me somewhere where this dream model of everyone going to identical state schools works and is affordable. Go for it. I've a good idea of a country or two you might chuck in, but give it a go anyway.
As for your generalising on what most couples are apparently earning, well that kind of presumption has also been already dealt with.

krd wrote: »

Better management. That's what it is. The managerial classes

I'm not a manager. Neither is my better half. Nor are majority of my friends who have managed to enrol in fee-paying schools.

krd wrote: »

What?.........Are you trying the social amphibian act now.

The biggest decider of economic outcomes in Ireland is social class. And sweet jesus I have been through it with the pricks. Working in places where it was an episode of Upstairs Downstairs every hour, of every day, of every bloody week

Oh pass the bucket.
Are you going to try the school of hard knocks lecture now? Who are you to gauge your circumstances vs mine? You don't know anything about my background whatsoever.
This is the begrudgery I mentioned earlier typical when discussing subjects like this.

krd wrote: »

To paraphrase von Clausewitz, fee paying schools are class war by other means

"Is it a preconception? Is it a misconception? Apparently I'm now a working class hero myself."
Know who said that? The multi-millionaire, John Lennon in bed.

krd wrote: »

I will tell you a little cheat some people pull. Instead of sending their kids through private school all the way. They just wait for the last two years - so the kid gets to put the fancy pants school on their CV, has hopefully learned the pompous accent . . .

And that's enough to show your pro-agendaic stance on the matter right there. Thanks.

Head The Wall · 11-10-2012 10:24AM

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

I HATE this unsubstantiated crap, Gaelscoileanna are open to one and all, they do not charge fees and do not give preference to "old boys."Don't equate them to schools that are not within financial reach of many.

Are they open to people that don't want to speak Irish?

Godge wrote: »

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.

So you think it is okay to be discussing this issue, when the real reason this issue is being addressed is because of the CPA. Why is it the the parents or kids that have to be used as a pawn in this game when the govt won't deal with the pay issue. The country is well down the road of "unforeseen budgetary circumstances" but yet they still deem it acceptable to keep giving current staff pay rises.

jank · 11-10-2012 12:42PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Absolutely. Religious indoctrination is possibly the very antithesis of education and, as such, has no place in our education system. If parents want to indoctrinate their children, it should be done through privately funded Sunday schools / indoctrination centres.

How very autocratic of you. What you want is the state to decide what is best for you and me and our children, rather than leaving it to us (the parents) to decide what is best for our children. Utter fallacy that people fall into time and again.

Sleepy wrote: »

One suggestion I gave in this thread would be an adjustment in teachers pay-scales that awarded allowances to those teaching in lower socio-economic areas: attempt to entice some of the better teachers into these schools.

So you are therefore penalising those that do not live in those socio-economic areas. Where is all this equality you were spouting earlier?

Sleepy wrote: »

That's a nice sound-bite but it doesn't argue against the suggestion in any way.

You are arguing to create another layer of bureaucracy inside the education department. In our experience has that EVER worked out?

Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

Comments