Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

krd · 11-10-2012 12:45PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The education system is already well funded allocating more resources will not improve outcomes to any great extent.

No. Throwing money at a problem does not necessarily work.

The real differences between the schools is in management. And it takes years and years to get it right. Once a useless bollocks of a teacher is hired it can be very difficult to get rid of them.

Where I grew up, there was a state funded school that regularly and still does out perform most fee paying schools. They're always in the top five. It's because they've been well managed.

Where I went to school, most of the teachers were complete bolloxes. They did not give a sh1t. My school ended up in the national media on several occasions for all the wrong reasons. More money would not have improved the teaching, it would have been more money for the bolloxes.

krd · 11-10-2012 12:58PM

jank wrote: »

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!

Milton Friedman......The bollox.

When people like Friedman talk about liberty, they mean the liberty to own slaves. The freedom where the rich are free to do as they like, but where there are laws to take away to freedom of workers to form unions. Where the property rights of the rich are sacro sanct. but where there isn't even the most basic human rights for those who are not rich.

The sneering wealthy. Ask for fairness and they go "life isn't fair" and they laugh.

Threaten to stop subsidising their privileges, and they bawl like fat spoilt children "Noooooo!!!......That's not fair!!!!

Well...........Life's not fair.

sbsquarepants · 11-10-2012 12:59PM

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

I don't buy into this logic at all. I in no way believe that the majority of kids now going to private schools would revert back to public if the state subsidy was pulled. It would merely cost their parents more and to put it bluntly fúck them, so what. The state should not be subsidising private schools full stop.

sliabh · 11-10-2012 01:10PM

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

What planet are you on?

Most middle class people (those with both parents working) will be putting their children in creches where the cost is €800-€1000 per month per child! This is the reality for me, and all of my non-"managerial" friends.

Taken in the context of spending €10,000+ a year for a creche, private school (and college) fees are actually cheaper! But I don't see people kicking up a stink about those who scrimp to be able to afford this.

krd wrote: »

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

The average salary in Ireland is €35,000.

krd wrote: »

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.

That's a fine straw man you have built there.

jank · 11-10-2012 01:12PM

krd wrote: »

Milton Friedman......The bollox.

When people like Friedman talk about liberty, they mean the liberty to own slaves. The freedom where the rich are free to do as they like, but where there are laws to take away to freedom of workers to form unions. Where the property rights of the rich are sacro sanct. but where there isn't even the most basic human rights for those who are not rich.

The sneering wealthy. Ask for fairness and they go "life isn't fair" and they laugh.

Threaten to stop subsidising their privileges, and they bawl like fat spoilt children "Noooooo!!!......That's not fair!!!!

Well...........Life's not fair.

You obviously don't know very much about him or his positions then.

krd · 11-10-2012 02:54PM

sliabh wrote: »

Most middle class people (those with both parents working) will be putting their children in creches where the cost is €800-€1000 per month per child! This is the reality for me, and all of my non-"managerial" friends.

And for a lot of people, if they have more than one child, it's cheaper, or maybe the only option, for one partner to stop working and become a full time child minder/home maker.

Taken in the context of spending €10,000+ a year for a creche, private school (and college) fees are actually cheaper! But I don't see people kicking up a stink about those who scrimp to be able to afford this.

You think this is an attack on the people who send their kids to private schools.

Jealousy, class war, begrudgery.

In terms of education, and education only (not social exclusivity). If you want to do the best for your children, try to get them into a good state school. Then spend the excess that you have from not paying fees on grinds. Or, and, you really should, sit down with the kids yourself.

The leaving cert papers - and I was looking as some recently - they're not actually that difficult. And a lot of the time it's not the kids are stupid - it's the teachers have bambozzled them to the point they can't tell what velocity or acceleration are. Whereas a single episode of Jeremy Clarkson's Top Gear would tell them more - then it's just memorise the formula.

And if you're going to pay for grinds, it might be an idea to avoid people who are working as teachers. There are piss takers, who just see it as easy beer money - and they more or less do their rotten class room cabaret act for a fee. My father is retired, he gives maths grinds as a hobby - he's in more demand than he can satisfy. Because he's the difference between a C or an A. And he doesn't charge ten grand.

If you want the rugby, and the school tie - then you'll have to pay for that.

The average salary in Ireland is €35,000.

35k, that sounds wonderful. Or at least it sound like everyone is doing alright. The same article says the average pay in the private sector is €611 a week.

That is an average. If you're working in a private sector company, where the inequality is such that the higher ups are being paid five to ten times what the lower downs are receiving, then being at the wrong end of the average is not very nice at all.

That's a fine straw man you have built there.

No. They're people I know. Unfortunately.

krd · 11-10-2012 02:57PM

jank wrote: »

You obviously don't know very much about him or his positions then.

I know about Chile.

I want to be free too. Screw this equality. I want to be free to take people up in planes and dump them into the Irish sea. Of course, I don't want equality so they could do the same to me.

OMD · 11-10-2012 03:17PM

krd wrote: »

35k, that sounds wonderful. Or at least it sound like everyone is doing alright. The same article says the average pay in the private sector is €611 a week.

That is an average. If you're working in a private sector company, where the inequality is such that the higher ups are being paid five to ten times what the lower downs are receiving, then being at the wrong end of the average is not very nice at .

The average wage in Ireland is €21.91 an hour. If you are a full time worker the average is about €45,000. A lot of people here earn bugger all because they are young and frankly worth bugger all. A good way to look at wage is that it should be about 1,000 times your age. In other words if you are 20 earning €20,000 then that's a decent wage. If you are 40 and earning €20,000 then that is a ****e wage.

Oregano_State · 11-10-2012 03:28PM

The people here who are equalling a 'private' education with a better education are being ridiculous.

Many 'non-private' schools have better JC and LC results than their 'private' counterparts. I have two friends who went to pretty prestigious 'private' schools, and I, and most of my other friends did better in our Leaving Certs than both of them. My school wasn't an amazing public school either, but you could do well if you wanted to, much like anywhere else.

The real difference comes from the background you are brought up in, the values instilled in you by your parents, whether a college education is a goal or an expectation.

I use the quotation marks around the words 'private' and 'public' because these days there's really no such thing as a free education. I went to a public CBS school, and every year there was a fee, I can't remember what it was called.. 'administration fee' or something that had to be paid by my parents. It increased almost every year, even though I was in secondary school during the Celtic tiger. Granted it was much much less than the fees paid to go to 'private schools' but it was a fee nonetheless.

I'm not from a wealthy background; both my parents have jobs, but neither aere very high-paying, but I really dislike the posters on this who seem to have an apathy for the wealthy, as if it's their fault for having more money than you do. I don't believe in this 'tax the rich to the gills' mentality th that seems to be very common these days.

Maybe if someone is earning over 200k then have a higher tax-band, but someone on 100k I would not consider a fair target for big tax-hikes.

I think reforming the social welfare system is just as important, as at the moment there isn't enough incentive to get off the dole, and in the cases of single parents it can be worth their while to not have a job and live off the system. That is a real problem in this country.

krd · 11-10-2012 05:25PM

Oregano_State wrote: »

The people here who are equalling a 'private' education with a better education are being ridiculous.

It's not really about education. It's about belonging.

I may as well drag John Lennon into this.

"They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool." - John Lennon - Working Class Hero.

That's not just a rule that applies in school, that's a rule that applies in life. "Well rounded" means not too clever and not too much of a dope. Were the brightest kids in the class the most popular?.....Many employers would be far more impressed by a place on the school rugby team, than how you did in honours Irish. And don't swallow the tripe about sporting showing "attainment". What it means is your someone who "gets along" with people (you're not bright enough to make them feel stupid - you don't do anything weird, like read a book for pleasure.)

Many 'non-private' schools have better JC and LC results than their 'private' counterparts. I have two friends who went to pretty prestigious 'private' schools, and I, and most of my other friends did better in our Leaving Certs than both of them. My school wasn't an amazing public school either, but you could do well if you wanted to, much like anywhere else.

Yes, and I've had a few bosses and all they had was a leaving cert....from a private fee paying school. Not rocket scientists. But for what they lacked in intellect, skills and experience, they more than made up for in demeanor. Pompous demeanor. Of course they didn't need brains - their job was to provide "leadership".

The real difference comes from the background you are brought up in, the values instilled in you by your parents, whether a college education is a goal or an expectation.

Don't drag your mother into this and I won't drag mine in either.

A friend just completed her masters degree. She grew up in a chaotic household. Both her parents were heroin addicts. Her father died of a heroin overdose. Her mother kicked the heroin habit, then proceeded to drink herself to death. Her parents didn't instill that much in her. And I can think of few people who had a harder life than her.

I'm not from a wealthy background; both my parents have jobs, but neither aere very high-paying, but I really dislike the posters on this who seem to have an apathy for the wealthy, as if it's their fault for having more money than you do.

I think the word you're looking for there is antipathy, not apathy. And the antipathy is not about money - or not only about money. Money isn't everything. Having to live with the snobbery, humiliation and constant disgust is even worse.

I've been in businesses, where myself and my colleagues worked like dogs. We were the ones doing the late nights and weekends. And when a higher paying position would open up - a more senior role - instead of the job going to one of our own, it would go to some la la without qualifications or the experience. And it wasn't that the higher ups didn't think we were qualified. They just thought we were knackers, undeserving of such a good wage. They rather blow the money on dopes.

I don't believe in this 'tax the rich to the gills' mentality th that seems to be very common these days.

You're a 'tax the poor to gills' man, I take it.

Maybe if someone is earning over 200k then have a higher tax-band, but someone on 100k I would not consider a fair target for big tax-hikes.

Life isn't fair. Life isn't fair. Life isn't fair. ....Life is not fair.

But here we have it......knew it was coming...the finger of blame pointing at the true villains.

I think reforming the social welfare system is just as important, as at the moment there isn't enough incentive to get off the dole,

This is the right wing delusion. If someone wants a job, all they have to do is just want it, and it magically appears. It's all about values - isn't it.

and in the cases of single parents it can be worth their while to not have a job and live off the system.

And there we have it. Single Parents - that right-wing train is never late.

That is a real problem in this country.

No. The problem with the country was subsidising the other welfare momas. The developers, the bankers, estate agents, all the hot shots who were flashing the cash a few years back. That was all welfare money.

A lot of wealthy bolloxes in Ireland, didn't get that cash through "free enterprise". They had bollocky little companies that got juicy state contracts.

And the developers. A lot of those eejits got access to cash because of their social class.......and corruption.

Traditional Irish capitalism.

JustinDee · 11-10-2012 05:58PM

That's quite the chip. It's all 'right-wing'. "pompous accent", "rugby", "school of hard knocks" and 'classes' etc . . .

Are you sure you want to go all 'anecdotal' on this, "krd"?
You're not going to convince many if your stall is already set and never for change.

krd · 11-10-2012 06:37PM

JustinDee wrote: »

That's quite the chip. It's all 'right-wing'. "pompous accent", "rugby", "school of hard knocks" and 'classes' etc . . .

Aw 'the chip on the shoulder'.......I was thinking when were you going to roll out that ould chestnut.

Are you sure you want to go all 'anecdotal' on this, "krd"?

For the love of Christ, I'm not the only one with the anecdotes - and I'd steered clear of them, much of a muchness, up to my last post.

You're not going to convince many if your stall is already set and never for change.

There are many ends to this stick.

Things like the fee-paying schools - discrimination on the basis of class (or the presentation of class - the illusion). These things lead people into an arms race. Where families are making huge sacrifices. And they're sacrificing family life. What is wrong with taking your children on a family holiday?

sliabh · 11-10-2012 08:44PM

krd wrote: »

You think this is an attack on the people who send their kids to private schools.

Jealousy, class war, begrudgery.

I am struggling a bit here to understand the point you are trying to make?

krd wrote: »

In terms of education, and education only (not social exclusivity). If you want to do the best for your children, try to get them into a good state school.

The reasons I am planning to send my children to a fee paying school are:
We are atheists. We will not send them to a Catholic school, and with the waiting lists the chances of getting one of the local Educate Together schools is slim. Secondly the school we are looking at teaches the children through English and a European language. This is not something offered in any of the state schools.

Don't be so quick to assume that people's reasons for choosing to pay extra for their children's education is just about exam results, networking or "class war" :rolleyes:

krd wrote: »

Then spend the excess that you have from not paying fees on grinds. Or, and, you really should, sit down with the kids yourself.

Huh? Don't spend money on school fees, spend it on after hours grinds instead. Is that your actual argument here?

krd · 11-10-2012 09:41PM

sliabh wrote: »

I am struggling a bit here to understand the point you are trying to make?

Maybe your parents should have invested more in your education.

The reasons I am planning to send my children to a fee paying school are: We are atheists.

The majority of the population, including the teachers, in this country are atheists. It's like the Soviet Block in the 80s - most people still pretending to be communists.

Don't be so quick to assume that people's reasons for choosing to pay extra for their children's education is just about exam results, networking or "class war" :rolleyes:

Why because, you and your devil worshiping wife are an exception?

If I had my way, all schools would be atheistic. Instead of religion classes, we'd have political theory. Lectures on dialectical materialism, Marx, Trotsky, Queer studies - Judith Butler, that kind of thing.

Huh? Don't spend money on school fees, spend it on after hours grinds instead. Is that your actual argument here?

Don't knock grinds. My father won't answer the phone because he has people begging him. Give me a child for two hours, and I can show them how to pass leaving cert honours physics ........Give them to me for five, and forever....no....I can get them an A.

I don't like my father's methods........I think they're too ponderous.

Scofflaw · 11-10-2012 09:43PM

That's not just a rule that applies in school, that's a rule that applies in life. "Well rounded" means not too clever and not too much of a dope. Were the brightest kids in the class the most popular?.....Many employers would be far more impressed by a place on the school rugby team, than how you did in honours Irish. And don't swallow the tripe about sporting showing "attainment". What it means is your someone who "gets along" with people (you're not bright enough to make them feel stupid - you don't do anything weird, like read a book for pleasure.)

Unfortunately - and I'm speaking as someone who was bright, weird, reads books for pleasure, and couldn't abide school teams - as time goes by you appreciate that there is value in that sort of stuff, which is exactly why managers and politicians tend to be exactly those kind of people. Senior people in organisations tend to promote people like themselves because it produces the least friction and the maximum team spirit (which is also what the sports stuff is about) - and even when they go bad, they tend to go bad within relatively known parameters. So, given how relatively little one actually knows about people one works with, it's a reasonably rational choice which doesn't work too badly, and is therefore the safe choice in most instances.

For the day to day stuff, at least, although it tends to work out poorly when the extraordinary is happening. And even having said that, if the brown stuff does hit the fan, and everyone's covered in it, these "chaps" still tend to hang together, close ranks, and admit no blame so that the investigators can find no weak link. So I guess even in those circumstances it works out well enough for them.

But you won't get rid of that kind of thing by getting rid of private schools, I'm afraid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 11-10-2012 09:50PM

And can we keep the "yore ma" stuff out of the discussion, thanks.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Oregano_State · 11-10-2012 10:34PM

krd wrote: »

It's not really about education. It's about belonging.

I may as well drag John Lennon into this.

"They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool." - John Lennon - Working Class Hero.

I really dislike the way you use a legend's words to lend a hand to the slap-dash arguments you're about to cobble together:

krd wrote: »

That's not just a rule that applies in school, that's a rule that applies in life. "Well rounded" means not too clever and not too much of a dope. Were the brightest kids in the class the most popular?.....Many employers would be far more impressed by a place on the school rugby team, than how you did in honours Irish. And don't swallow the tripe about sporting showing "attainment". What it means is your someone who "gets along" with people (you're not bright enough to make them feel stupid - you don't do anything weird, like read a book for pleasure.)

No. "Well rounded" means that you're not of singular focus and can get on with people. I was bright, and never the most popular in school, but I do have a wide range of interests and now feel like I can get on with most people. Just because people are personable doesn't mean they're not brilliant individuals. Look at Neil deGrasse Tyson.

And success in sport does show that someone has commitment, health, determination, skill, and a degree of intelligence.

There is absolutely no basis for your argument of the 'posh rugby crowd' (who in many many many cases are not 'posh' at all.) being representative of sport as a whole, be it local, Irish, or international sport.

krd wrote: »

Yes, and I've had a few bosses and all they had was a leaving cert....from a private fee paying school. Not rocket scientists. But for what they lacked in intellect, skills and experience, they more than made up for in demeanor. Pompous demeanor. Of course they didn't need brains - their job was to provide "leadership".

I think a Tayto may have at some point in the past, fallen off your head and landed level with your neck, resting perilously...on your shoulder.

krd wrote: »

Don't drag your mother into this and I won't drag mine in either.

A friend just completed her masters degree. She grew up in a chaotic household. Both her parents were heroin addicts. Her father died of a heroin overdose. Her mother kicked the heroin habit, then proceeded to drink herself to death. Her parents didn't instill that much in her. And I can think of few people who had a harder life than her.

Well done to your friend. But singular examples do not represent the majority. It is silly to argue against the fact that a child from a family who cares about them and loves them stands a better chance of success than a child from a family who doesn't.

krd wrote: »

I think the word you're looking for there is antipathy, not apathy. And the antipathy is not about money - or not only about money. Money isn't everything. Having to live with the snobbery, humiliation and constant disgust is even worse.

Yes antipathy is a better word. Again with the Taytos.

krd wrote: »

I've been in businesses, where myself and my colleagues worked like dogs. We were the ones doing the late nights and weekends. And when a higher paying position would open up - a more senior role - instead of the job going to one of our own, it would go to some la la without qualifications or the experience. And it wasn't that the higher ups didn't think we were qualified. They just thought we were knackers, undeserving of such a good wage. They rather blow the money on dopes.

OK so you had a bad a experience. So now the whole upper-class are a bunch of elitist pr1cks. Makes a great big dollop of sense, doesn't it?

krd wrote: »

You're a 'tax the poor to gills' man, I take it.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

krd wrote: »

Life isn't fair. Life isn't fair. Life isn't fair. ....Life is not fair.

But here we have it......knew it was coming...the finger of blame pointing at the true villains.

This is the right wing delusion. If someone wants a job, all they have to do is just want it, and it magically appears. It's all about values - isn't it.

And there we have it. Single Parents - that right-wing train is never late.

Right Wing? You gotta be kidding me.

Anyone who says the social welfare system is not in need of an almost complete reform is either a beneficiary, a liar or an idiot.

That's not to say that other public services are not in need of change too...

And yes, I do believe that with the right mix of hard-work and intelligence and emotional support, that anyone in this country can find a place in life that's right for them.

krd wrote: »

No. The problem with the country was subsidising the other welfare momas. The developers, the bankers, estate agents, all the hot shots who were flashing the cash a few years back. That was all welfare money.

A lot of wealthy bolloxes in Ireland, didn't get that cash through "free enterprise". They had bollocky little companies that got juicy state contracts.

And the developers. A lot of those eejits got access to cash because of their social class.......and corruption.

Traditional Irish capitalism.

I agree with you about the bankers and developers took the p!ss with the Irish economy, I just don't understand your inability to separate class from the argument.

People are individuals, not herds of cattle. You can't group them into genres to make them fit your petty arguments.

You need a good aul dose of strong cop-on tae.

Good night.

Sleepy · 12-10-2012 08:51AM

sliabh wrote: »

The reasons I am planning to send my children to a fee paying school are:
We are atheists. We will not send them to a Catholic school, and with the waiting lists the chances of getting one of the local Educate Together schools is slim. Secondly the school we are looking at teaches the children through English and a European language. This is not something offered in any of the state schools.

What's the school? And since they're learning a European language do they get to opt out of Irish too?

sliabh · 12-10-2012 09:20AM

Sleepy wrote: »

What's the school? And since they're learning a European language do they get to opt out of Irish too?

Kilians in Clonskeagh. And they don't get an exemption from Irish, all the usual state school rules are followed. Though my eldest will not have to do it if she doesn't want to as she was born in Austria.

Head The Wall · 12-10-2012 09:47AM

Oregano_State wrote: »

And success in sport does show that someone has commitment, health, determination, skill, and a degree of intelligence.

Premier League Footballers???????

Sleepy · 12-10-2012 10:26AM

sliabh wrote: »

Kilians in Clonskeagh. And they don't get an exemption from Irish, all the usual state school rules are followed. Though my eldest will not have to do it if she doesn't want to as she was born in Austria.

Lucky girl.

Are there any rules that state Irish schools must adhere to the state curriculum? i.e. if enough parents wanted a secular education for their children and wanted to remove the time currently wasted on Irish, take some of the slack out of the current course-work, introduce more subjects (e.g. philosophy, Chinese, IT, Drivers Ed) and have the students sit an international baccalaureate or similar rather than a Leaving Cert in their final year of school would that be legal?

It's not an option for me and it'd be something I'd much, much rather see become a model for our entire education system rather than simply a bastion of high achievement for those who can afford it but were I to win the euromillions tonight, could I provide my children with that kind of an education?

Oregano_State · 12-10-2012 10:52AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

Premier League Footballers???????

There are more types of intelligence than academic ability. It depends on the task required. Elite athletes can perform under pressure and make decisions in split seconds. Some academics can't make decisions to save their life.

Sleepy · 12-10-2012 12:49PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

Premier League Footballers???????

To be fair, with most of the footballers, I think a lack of education is more of an issue than a lack of intelligence. Most of them leave school early and wouldn't have exactly been focused on their studies prior to leaving...

bladespin · 12-10-2012 12:56PM

Just my opinion (and pretty sure it's been stated already) but if you choose to send your children to a private school then you should pay all the costs, I don't see why the state should subsidise these schools in any way.

Scofflaw · 12-10-2012 01:09PM

bladespin wrote: »

Just my opinion (and pretty sure it's been stated already) but if you choose to send your children to a private school then you should pay all the costs, I don't see why the state should subsidise these schools in any way.

Perhaps because you're not choosing to send your child to a school that has full autonomy from the Department of Education in exchange for full payment of school costs by parents, but one whose autonomy is partial in exchange for partial payment of school costs by parents.

Nearly every "non fee-paying" school accepts, and many specifically ask, for further contributions from parents, to allow them to offer either additional services or indeed just basic provisions:

My child's school have asked for a voluntary contribution what should I do?

Primary schools in Ireland are funded on the basis of a Capitation Grant Scheme which is decided in the Budget by the Government every year. That means the school's Board of Management gets a certain amount of money allocated for each child that they have enrolled in the school. This money is used to pay all expenses, such as electricity, oil, insurance, telephone, etc. As costs rise, this is often not enough to cover all the costs. Some schools ask parents for a voluntary contribution to help towards these costs. This of course has to be on a voluntary basis and you are under no obligation to pay it. No child or family should be named or shamed for not contributing.

and

National Parents Council Primary shows that over 40% of Parents who responded to a NPC Survey and whose school requested a Voluntary Contribution said that they felt Under Pressure to pay it

In a recent survey conducted by National Parents Council Primary (NPC) that had 668 respondents, over 40% of those whose school requested a voluntary contribution said that they felt under pressure to pay it.

The same survey also revealed that of the respondents who were asked for a voluntary contribution, in over 60% of the cases this request was not asked for anonymously.

NPC are concerned that in a significant number of schools in Ireland the voluntary contribution is not seen by parents as voluntary. Parents have told NPC that these contributions are often now referred to as fees and levies rather than voluntary contributions. In some instances parents have also reported that the enrolment of their child in a new school was dependent on an upfront payment of this money.

NPC are cognisant of the growing financial pressures on schools, however this pressure cannot be transferred to parents who are often also experiencing difficult financial times. NPC calls on Principals and school Boards of Management to manage school funding issues with a whole school community approach. Boards of Management, school staff and Parents should come together to jointly address the additional funding needs of the school and agree a way forward together to address these needs.

In financial terms, there is no hard and fast cut-off between fee-paying and non-fee-paying schools bar the supposedly 'voluntary' nature of the contribution in the latter.

As such, there is no justification for removing grant aid to some schools which ask for further money, and not from others which do the same.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sliabh · 12-10-2012 01:12PM

bladespin wrote: »

Just my opinion (and pretty sure it's been stated already) but if you choose to send your children to a private school then you should pay all the costs, I don't see why the state should subsidise these schools in any way.

Here is a question, what then is a private school?
A Clongowes charging €16,800 per annum - yes.
But what about Kilians that charges €4,000 to allow them to teach through French or German?
Or a Gaelscoil that charges a few hundred euro per year?
Or a state school that has a compulsory "voluntary" contribution of €250.

As for why they should be subsidised. Well ALL primary and secondary education in Ireland is subsidised. A lot of the people sending children to fee paying schools are not rich, they are middle class tax-payers who will make sacrifices to manage this for their children. As tax payers they should be able to expect that the state will pay towards their children's education as well. Or are we going to apply the principle that as soon as someone puts their hand in their pocket to pay something extra for their kids future then that is wrong and all state monies should be blocked?

krd · 12-10-2012 01:52PM

Oregano_State wrote: »

And success in sport does show that someone has commitment, health, determination, skill, and a degree of intelligence.

Balls. These guys knock around a few balls when they're at their rugby schools, then pack on the pounds like mad when they get on the management stream. First heart attack before they hit 40.

People like sport because of the mindlessness of it. I'm not saying that to condemn it, that is just the fact of the matter.

OMD · 12-10-2012 02:24PM

krd wrote: »

People like sport because of the mindlessness of it. I'm not saying that to condemn it, that is just the fact of the matter.

Well if it's a fact there is no point arguing I suppose.

Madd Finn · 12-10-2012 02:50PM

It is a fact that more than half of all fee-paying schools in the country are in South Dublin. Many of these are schools with a "Protestant" or non-denominational ethos, but the majority are good solid Catholic schools intended for the benefit of the "majority" community.

These won't be hard facts for many critics to stomach: "Wouldn't you know it?" they're bound to think. "It's only those Southside West Brits who want to keep themselves above the stench of the hoi polloi, bringing in social apartheid and reducing the rest of us to second class citizens!! To hell with them."

But there are some nagging discrepancies to disprove this thesis. For a start there are a few, a very few, really good non fee paying schools in South Dublin, including a few Gaelscoileanna. These tend to be massively oversubscribed. In fact, if you want to get into one of these schools you really need to have your name down almost from the moment of birth.

We put our daughter's name down for Muckross, an excellent girls' secondary school in Donnybrook and known as such, when she was in Junior Infants aged 5.

They laughed at us.

There were more than 50 kids ahead of her in the queue, and that was over and above the quota already filled for that year. So we knew it was very unlikely she would get in and made alternative arrangements.

Why are schools such as these so oversubscribed? Because people are more than happy to have their kids attend free schools if they are good, well run institutions with properly organised extracurricular activities, such as sports, and with a good social mix among their pupils. Failing a social mix, people will want a population that comes predominantly from their own peer group.

So if what you really want is more kids going to non fee paying schools, then the answer is clear: Just build a few more well equipped and well staffed (that is to the general Ed Department standards) such institutions throughout south Dublin. Of course people would flock to these and the fee-paying schools would come under serious pressure. The most exclusive will retain their numbers, and would probably be less affected by any loss of subsidy as they could just up their fees.

But the majority would find the going really rough.

Now I ask you: What do you think would be the reaction around the country if the Department of Education announced that it was going to spend all this money on the part of the country that is thought to be the wealthiest, generally speaking, in the land?

I reckon you would have a fair few deaths due to apoplexy. (Which may not be a bad thing

)

"What??? We're spending all this money on these rich bastards with their Darts and Luases and tennis clubs and cricket clubs!!! Feck them. Let them pay for their own schools!"

Er, that's kind of what they do at the moment.

"Well then, make them pay more. Insist that they bear the FULL cost of educating their own children but only after they have contributed to the cost of educating everybody else's."

Is that fair?

krd · 12-10-2012 03:00PM

Madd Finn wrote: »

Is that fair?

Life isn't fair.

Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

Comments