Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

krd · 12-10-2012 03:35PM

Madd Finn wrote: »

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.

Muckross is a very interesting point. It's a non-fee paying school. Yet, I mean, I thought it was a fee paying school. They have an equestrian team for Christsake.

It's in Donnybrook, not Donnycarney. Muckross do not have fees, but they have to be raising a lot of money from some other source. Maybe they laughed at you as you'd *forgotten* to make a generous charitable donation.

There are plenty of bad schools in Dublin. In some areas, anyone who can, buses their kids absurd distances across the city to avoid the school that may only be a few yards from their house.

bladespin · 12-10-2012 09:25PM

sliabh wrote: »

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?

I don't care, if you choose to pay then you should pay in full, thankfully I've a few years before I have to worry about it, as I said I'm not here to reason, I gave my opinion, that's all.

Madd Finn · 13-10-2012 12:38PM

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.

Fine. I don't see why those who pay for their own kids education should pay ANYTHING AT ALL for the education of other people's kids.

That's the logic of your argument.

bladespin wrote:

I'm not here to reason, I gave my opinion, that's all.

Not here to reason? Maybe that's just as well. :rolleyes:

13-10-2012 03:53PM

krd wrote: »

They have an equestrian team for Christsake.

You say that as if it were something to criticise. What's wrong with equestrianism? Apart from dressage, which is as interesting as watching paint dry, I think it's a quite exciting sport to watch.

Madd Finn wrote: »

Fine. I don't see why those who pay for their own kids education should pay ANYTHING AT ALL for the education of other people's kids.

Maybe that is the ideal solution. People who want to send their kids to fee charging schools should pay the full whack - but should not have to pay to subsidise the free school scheme.

The problem with that approach is that you can't hypothecate your tax bill - you can't break your tax bill down into the bits that go to health, education, transport, debt servicing and so on. But what you can do is treat school fees like medical insurance fees, and make them tax-deductible at the standard rate of tax.

Problem solved - the people who opt out of the free schools scheme have to pay the full cost for their kids, but don't have to make a full contribution towards everyone else's - although they continue to make some level of contribution because they don't get a full tax rebate for their own school fees.

Surely that's the fairest way?

krd · 13-10-2012 07:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You say that as if it were something to criticise. What's wrong with equestrianism? Apart from dressage, which is as interesting as watching paint dry, I think it's a quite exciting sport to watch.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. It's an incredibly expensive thing to do.

My school only had a bollocky football team - which the bollockes spent every penny of the sports budget and more on. On sports day, the rest of the school used to just hang around the basketball court smoking fags, because we didn't even have a basketball. And our bollocky football team couldn't beat a special needs school.

I would have loved to have gone to a school where they did sports properly, I didn't.

The Muckross equestrian team are impressive - this isn't riding a few ponies around a field for a few minutes. They're show jumping.

Equestrian.jpg.jpeg

They even Ski

index.php?view=image&format=raw&type=img&id=1538&option=com_joomgallery&Itemid=112

13-10-2012 08:19PM

krd wrote: »

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. It's an incredibly expensive thing to do.

And what's wrong with that?

krd · 13-10-2012 08:31PM

Deleted User wrote: »

And what's wrong with that?

It's a non-fee-paying school.....I went to a non-fee-paying school....we didn't have bloody show jumping........Or skiing.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong - specifically - but a typical non-fee paying school would not have those resources.

Are you genuinely confused

.......Or are you just sneering at me, because I went to a school that didn't have show jumping, or skiing. Status slapping me. I know what your kind are like. I know what your kind are like only too well.

Madd Finn · 14-10-2012 01:12AM

Deleted User wrote: »

you can't break your tax bill down into the bits that go to health, education, transport, debt servicing and so on. But what you can do is treat school fees like medical insurance fees, and make them tax-deductible at the standard rate of tax.

That's exactly what I mean.

Perhaps I should clarify: I'm not advocating this as a desirable policy. I actually think the system that we have is probably as equitable as it could be. The fact that the government pays the salaries of all teachers provides a level playing field of sorts in that the best teachers are not continually being poached by the more expensive schools. Why move if you are happily ensconced in one area and are not going to be paid any more to move elsewhere?

I'm just saying it's the logical consequence of the argument that "If you want something, pay for it yourself"

Hawkeye123 · 14-10-2012 06:24AM

Dave! wrote: »

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

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

Before addressing the issue of the state funding private schools let us first examine the question: should the state fund schools. In my view - everything should be privatised and therefore no school should be funded directly by the state. That is not to say education should not be provided through incentive schemes and that it should not be compulsary - of course it should. The point here is that if a school is doing a good job it should be rewarded accordingly. Having said that - given our present system of state funded schools, should the state discriminate against those who want to invest in their childrens education? Certainly not! If the state withdraws funding only from private schools (instead of from all schools) then I would suggest that the parents of those students should up the anti by sending their kids to schools which of fully subsidised by the state - they can still supplement their kids education through grinds, extracurricular activities, etc.

Hawkeye123 · 14-10-2012 06:36AM

krd wrote: »

Are you genuinely confused .......Or are you just sneering at me, because I went to a school that didn't have show jumping, or skiing. Status slapping me. I know what your kind are like. I know what your kind are like only too well.

Hello Krd. Jealousy is a very self distructive trait. Rather than being jealous - wouldn`t it be better to assume personnal responsibility for your circumstances. Even if you are completely blameless for any disadvantages you may have had or for growing up in poverty for example - it is much more constructive to "blame" yourself rather than being jealous of others. By "blaming" yourself - you can examine your life carefully and work hard to achieve your goals but by blaming others or being jealous of them - you stand to gain nothing of lasting benefit.

JustinDee · 14-10-2012 08:24AM

krd wrote: »

Are you genuinely confused .......Or are you just sneering at me, because I went to a school that didn't have show jumping, or skiing. Status slapping me. I know what your kind are like. I know what your kind are like only too well.

Yet again you jump the gun with "So you think you're better than me?" diatribe, only this time with even more amateur psychology. Can you tell their own accent too? "Pompous" was it? Maybe they're the kind that didn't give you that promotion despite working like a frontline miner while they sat drinking Pimms and had a good chortle at the whole thing?

Oh well, I suppose its a form of release or something? "Status slapping"? Oh boy.
The world isn't out to get you. As you said yourself, "Life isn't fair".

14-10-2012 12:58PM

krd wrote: »

It's a non-fee-paying school.....I went to a non-fee-paying school....we didn't have bloody show jumping........Or skiing.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong - specifically - but a typical non-fee paying school would not have those resources.

If you aren't saying there's anything wrong, why did you whinge about it? And it was a whinge - Jaysus you can nearly hear the whining in the post.

Muckross, as it happens, is in the middle of a very well-off area. So people will have the money to afford to take equestrianism seriously even though their kids are at a free school. Indeed, the fees they are saving would go a long way to helping them afford the costs of such a sport.

As for skiing, my niece went skiing to Aspen, Colorado on her annual school trip last year. There were 40 of them on the trip. She goes to a VEC school.

krd wrote: »

Are you genuinely confused .......Or are you just sneering at me, because I went to a school that didn't have show jumping, or skiing. Status slapping me. I know what your kind are like. I know what your kind are like only too well.

I'm not remotely confused. Just make up your mind what your complaint is. This is supposed to be a discussion about the economics of the relationship between the State and fee charging schools. If you want to talk about your personal gripes about people you believe to be better off than you are, you'd be better off posting a thread in the Personal Issues forum. :cool:

VinLieger · 14-10-2012 02:02PM

bladespin wrote: »

I don't care, if you choose to pay then you should pay in full, thankfully I've a few years before I have to worry about it, as I said I'm not here to reason, I gave my opinion, that's all.

Thats an incredibly small minded and uninformed attitude

krd · 14-10-2012 03:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If you aren't saying there's anything wrong, why did you whinge about it? And it was a whinge - Jaysus you can nearly hear the whining in the post.

For the love of Christ. I just thought it was a little peculiar that the school is non-fee paying, I assumed it was a private school.

Muckross, as it happens, is in the middle of a very well-off area. So people will have the money to afford to take equestrianism seriously even though their kids are at a free school.

Indeed, the fees they are saving would go a long way to helping them afford the costs of such a sport.

I'm sure it would, I'm sure it would. So the funds for the other resources come through the back door. Parents probably have to pass a "soft skills" test before they're let put their children through the door.

As for skiing, my niece went skiing to Aspen, Colorado on her annual school trip last year. There were 40 of them on the trip. She goes to a VEC school.

My school never went on school trips anywhere (there was an incident that was reported in the national press). The management were terrible. And teachers were all lazy bolloxes. Except the bollocky men loved their football. I found out after leaving they were spending an outrageous amount of money busing around the bollocky football team - every last penny of money for sports or extracurricular activities was being squandered on their bollocky useless football team. Paddy Whack fantasy football managers.

There is a huge difference between different non-fee paying schools.

It comes down to management or mismanagement. It probably takes generations to create a really good school - fees or no fees.

Interestingly though. There was a private school - I'm not going to mention the name - a few miles from where I went to school. At the time they were going through some kind of problem. At the time, their academic performance was appalling (far worse than my school, which was some achievement) - but people with money were still putting their kids in. It was well known how remarkably bad the school was doing - but there still seemed to be some cachet that was worth the candle.

I'm not remotely confused. Just make up your mind what your complaint is. This is supposed to be a discussion about the economics of the relationship between the State and fee charging schools.

Oh right, when you talk, it's a discussion, when I speak, I'm being chippy.

krd · 14-10-2012 04:33PM

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Hello Krd. Jealousy is a very self distructive trait. Rather than being jealous - wouldn`t it be better to assume personnal responsibility for your circumstances.

No it's not about jealousy. We live in a seriously dysfunctional society. It's not the 'politics of envy'.

The last thing we need is more social apartheid. School tie capitalism does not work. School tie "democracy" is as equally dysfunctional.

It's not jealousy. I'm wise enough to know that all that glisters is not gold. The happiest periods of my life involved little money - and times when I had the most, I was miserable. And there are legions of people who "have it all", who are absolutely miserable.

A comment I saw elsewhere, from a former London banker, sums it up. He said when he had his City job, he had loads of money. But that there wasn't a single day he didn't get on the train to work and pray it would crash, so he wouldn't have to go through another day of it.

Even if you are completely blameless for any disadvantages you may have had or for growing up in poverty for example - it is much more constructive to "blame" yourself rather than being jealous of others.

I can see what you're getting at. There are people who blame everyone around them, and they have problems - but their problems are of their own making. Or at least, they're problems they could easily fix - if they just pointed the finger of blame in their own direction.

But....I had an really interesting conversation with a friend recently. He's a non-national, who's been in the country a long time. He said, everyone in Ireland is turning on each other. The rich are blaming the poor, the poor are blaming the rich, the nationals are blaming the non-nationals, and the non-nationals are blaming the nationals.

By "blaming" yourself - you can examine your life carefully and work hard to achieve your goals but by blaming others or being jealous of them - you stand to gain nothing of lasting benefit.

In Ireland at this moment in time, everyone is going through a period of deep and painful introspection.

Even the girls at Muckross

p1akuw47h5r3it · 14-10-2012 06:38PM

krd wrote: »

It's a non-fee-paying school.....I went to a non-fee-paying school....we didn't have bloody show jumping........Or skiing.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong - specifically - but a typical non-fee paying school would not have those resources.

Are you genuinely confused .......Or are you just sneering at me, because I went to a school that didn't have show jumping, or skiing. Status slapping me. I know what your kind are like. I know what your kind are like only too well.

Having read this thread I'm starting to believe your just trolling. Either that or you simply have a huge chip on your shoulder and simply hate people that are more wealthy then you and those you perceive to be "rich".

The pic of the people skiing simply looks like a trip away to a ski resort. I doubt this was payed for by the state or the school, more likely through sponsership and fundraising.

With regards to Equestrian, was there a demand for it in your school? Because I really doubt there was.

JustinDee · 14-10-2012 06:40PM

krd wrote: »

But....I had an really interesting conversation with a friend recently. He's a non-national, who's been in the country a long time. He said, everyone in Ireland is turning on each other

Quelle surprise. Ireland is tribal right down to which end of street you live on. It has never been any other way. Nothing new in my lifetime anyway. How long has this anecdotal friend of yours been in-country?

krd wrote: »

The rich are blaming the poor, the poor are blaming the rich, the nationals are blaming the non-nationals, and the non-nationals are blaming the nationals

Considering not one person has been able to distinguish the rich from the poor once in this thread, who is your friend talking about exactly?

14-10-2012 11:04PM

krd wrote: »

I'm sure it would, I'm sure it would. So the funds for the other resources come through the back door. Parents probably have to pass a "soft skills" test before they're let put their children through the door.

The degree of paranoia in the above quote is simply unreal.

krd wrote: »

My school never went on school trips anywhere (there was an incident that was reported in the national press). The management were terrible. And teachers were all lazy bolloxes. Except the bollocky men loved their football. I found out after leaving they were spending an outrageous amount of money busing around the bollocky football team - every last penny of money for sports or extracurricular activities was being squandered on their bollocky useless football team. Paddy Whack fantasy football managers.

Why should fee charging schools, or the people who send their kids there, or the youngsters who go to Muckross, be blamed for the fact that you didn't like your school?

krd wrote: »

Oh right, when you talk, it's a discussion, when I speak, I'm being chippy.

Well in this case, yes.

The thread is in the Irish Economy forum, but your entire approach to the topic has nothing to do with economics or politics, and everything to do with your own sense of personal grievance. This isn't the PI forum, but here's some PI advice. If you walk around believing you have the weight of the world on your shoulders, then you have the weight of the world on your shoulders. But don't go blaming others for putting it there.

Let it go.

Head The Wall · 15-10-2012 08:15AM

krd wrote: »

But....I had an really interesting conversation with a friend recently. He's a non-national, who's been in the country a long time. He said, everyone in Ireland is turning on each other. The rich are blaming the poor, the poor are blaming the rich, the nationals are blaming the non-nationals, and the non-nationals are blaming the nationals.

I'll agree with you on this point, I moved to London ten months ago and even though things in the UK aren't great for a lot of people either there isn't the negativity everywhere. In Ireland it's all you bloody hear about from the media, workmates, family etc. It's very pervasive and it wears you down over time

golden lane · 15-10-2012 08:22AM

the problem with ireland is........nobody realised, that if you borrow money. then go mad spending it.....?????

VinLieger · 15-10-2012 09:52AM

krd wrote: »

Are you genuinely confused .......Or are you just sneering at me, because I went to a school that didn't have show jumping, or skiing. Status slapping me. I know what your kind are like. I know what your kind are like only too well.

My god you have a giant chip on your shoulder, might be time to grow up and get over it

Joe 90 · 15-10-2012 01:56PM

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.

How much do the gaelscoileanna cost the taxpayer?

Sleepy · 15-10-2012 02:01PM

Depends on if it's a Gaeltacht school or not, if not, either €1,583 or €1,424 more per teacher (Teaching through Irish allowance) and if it's a Gaeltacht School, it'd be an additional €3,063 or €2,757 per teacher.

(figures depend on whether the teacher has a job already or is one of the new "lesser" teachers).

Joe 90 · 15-10-2012 02:29PM

Madd Finn wrote: »

Fine. I don't see why those who pay for their own kids education should pay ANYTHING AT ALL for the education of other people's kids.

That's the logic of your argument.

Not here to reason? Maybe that's just as well. :rolleyes:

Agreed, no state subsidy for fee charging schools schools but full tax relief at parents highest rate allowed against school fees. Absolutely fair.

Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

Comments