EUR100m a year government funding goes to Private schools

Each pupil in a private school costs the state about half what a pupil in a normal school costs. This being the case, I figure the government should try to further build the numbers using private schools.

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Now you're just blatantly trolling so /thread

Em no I am not I'm point out a level of hypocrisy evident around this issue. I dont see why it would be bad if only the upper middle class could afford it? Many very poor people cannot afford it now and I dont see the supporters of private schools kicking up a fuss about that. According to some people the parents are the major factor anyway so they have faith in their hypothesis and not worry if their kid cant go to private school.

melekalikimaka wrote: »

the public school chip on shoulder brigade out again??? Its Christmas for god sake, give it a rest

I think this issue would be a lot less divisive If the "chip on the shoulder" thing were dropped. It's not conducive to discussion.

Leftist wrote: »

wow....

I imagine those championing public spending on a resourse for the wealthy, during a time of austerity, are the same people who think people from disadvantaged areas have no excuse and their self proclaimed 'entitlements' should be stripped.

kinda sad. but shows why the country is in such a shocking state.

The government has a duty to provide first and second level education for all students, regardless of their financial status.

That 100m is paid on wages, just the same as the government pays wages for those is public schools.

Parents who choose to voluntarily add on to the basic level provided by the state should be lauded, not begrudged.

Students from fee-paying schools are far more likely to go to college, to start up a business and generally make a success of themselves.

Where do you get off with the idea that "ur paretns rich, no govment funds for u" ?

Dodge wrote: »

is that supposed to be an argument for fee paying schools to receive government funding?

Yes, why not?

Government investing in people more likely to create jobs and wealth is bad how? I've yet to see one single valid argument to say otherwise.

bluewolf wrote: »

It was explained a few posts above yours, go and read it

I did, it gave no moral reason why it would be worse if slightly more people couldn't afford it.

Ah, the annual left wing idiotic thread about fee-paying schools. Rather than type up a common sense response to the OP, I'll just point at a sample of intelligent posts from previous threads...

2010

dotsman wrote: »

Wow, 257 posts in and people are still arguing about this no-brainer (while most of my questions previously posted remain unanswered)

Let's establish a few facts:

• Private schools do not necessarily mean fee-paying. Most schools are private* (typically owned/run by religous orders). The state pays for the staff. However, when it comes to the required extra funds, some schools depend on state funding and voluntary contributions, others have a fixed compulsary amount which the parents must contribute for their child to attend.
• Statistically (aknowledging plenty of individual exceptions), fee-paying schools produce better academic graduates, with much higher attendance, not just at university level, but at the top levels of university (medicine, law, engineering, dentistry etc)
• Statistically, parents of fee-paying students typically earn more than parents of non fee-paying students, therefore pay more tax.
• Statistically, graduates of fee-paying students typically earn more than graduates of non fee-paying students, therefore pay more tax.
• Fee-paying students cost the state less for their education than non fee-paying students.
• If the state didn't fund the teacher's salaries in fee-paying schools, then, due to the massive increase in fees, a lot of students would no longer be able to attend, putting huge pressure on the exisitng non fee-paying system, costing the state a lot more than they would save.

OK, so with that established, let's look at the OP's poll.
"Should state subsidisation of Irish private schools continue?" is a very loaded question. Ultimately, they are not subsidised by the state. In fact it is the other way around, they are subsidised by the parents. Ultimately, to be more accurate, that question should read "Should we raise taxes to spend more taxpayers money to achieve a worse education system?"

To that question, at present, 143 (66.2%) of people have said yes.

There can be no logical reason for this result other than either:

• People were fooled by the OP's loaded question, and voted without independently assessing the issue.
• Begrudgery. The foundation of the bull$hit socialist policies that so often get bandied around (and unfortunatly, all too often, implemented).

* The other types of school are the Vocational (about a quarter) and Community schools (a handful).

2011 (Thread 1)

dotsman wrote: »

This debate comes up the whole time and is always the same BS. Even the phrase "subsidising" pretty much sums up the view-point of those who use it.

Fee-paying schools are NOT "subsidised". The vast majority of schools in this country are private. Teachers across all the various schools types are paid for by the Department of Education.

For public schools (ie community schools), the building, management, general running of the schools are paid for by the taxpayer. For private schools, this is paid for by the school. How do the private schools fund this? Typically, this comes from a mixture of applying for grants, fundraising and the religious order that runs the school. Where does the religious order get the money? By making some of their schools fee-paying.

Thus, you may have a fee-paying christian brothers school and a non-fee paying christian brothers school. Thus, if one is to use the term "subsidising", it is the parents of children in fee paying schools who "subsidise" the children attending the non-fee paying schools.

But, hey, never let common sense get in the way of typical socialist drivel.

2011 (Thread 2)

dotsman wrote: »

That was point was referring to the common misconceptions regarding private schools.

You are in love with the word "subsidised" which is the completely wrong way of looking at this.

Do you consider your security being "subsidised" by the state because they pay for the guards? Do you consider your health "subsidised" by the state because they pay doctors/nurses? Do you see non-fee-paying schools as "subsidised" by the state as the state pays all their teachers as well?

I have shown that fee-paying schools are not "subsidised" any more than a non-fee-paying school. If you can't see that, then you need professional help.

You cannot seem to understand a very simple concept:

• The state pays teachers in all schools.
• Teachers are supplied based on enrolment figures/catchment areas etc, and have nothing to do with fees.
• The state provides limited funds for facilities/structural improvements etc.
• Schools seek extra funding from external sources to compliment the state funding.
• This external funding typically consists of some/all of the following
  - Fundraiser events
  - Charitable donations
  - Funding from the religious order associated with the school (if applicable)
  - Voluntary contributions from parents
  - Involuntary fixed contributions from parents (ie a fee-paying structure)

All students receive the same funding from the state*. In the case of fee-paying schools, parents have chosen to contribute further, on top of the states basic provision, to their child's education. Indeed, a large portion of these fees do not actually get spent on the school in question. Instead, they get channelled by the religious orders into paying for other non-fee-paying schools. Thus, parents of fee-paying school students often end up "subsidising" non-fee-paying students.

*Special needs and students from "disadvantaged" backgrounds actually get more state funding.

2011 (Thread 2)

Left wing idiotic? I think you'll find me more right wing than most. I am against extra varibles being applied to some students on the basis of non phenotypically traits. The extra varible in my opinion is being mistaken for a phenotypical traits. Remove extra varibles from a system and well will get a fairer picture of phenotypical traits.

Look at Finalnd when they closed private schools the test scores between the rich and the poor closed. The argument that the success of those in private schools is down to parental stimulus is a fallacy destroyed by science.

Idbatterim wrote: »

WOW & how much do these fee paying parents pay in taxes every year, maybe we should change heading to "FEE paying parents being bled dry to subsidise everybody else..."

Great then you wont have a problem if only the super rich can afford fee paying shcools based on the amount of tax they pay.

Lars1916 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity...whose kids are attending private schools? The rich and wealthy ones? The posh ones?

Am not 100% familiar with this part of the school system, that's why I'm asking

Most bar the elite schools are not posh or rich at all.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is this definate? I propose a system wide change. With equal funding for all schools. It is not simply eradicating private schools. I predict, like Finland, that the gap in test scores between the rich and poor will shrink.

That OECD report was in relation to blue and white collar. Hardly scientific terms and not indicative of the income levels of both.

Our equality in entrance to third level education is better than Finland. Every OECD report says this, regardless of whether it's by the parent's job type or by the parent's education level. If you want to challenge this then you're going to have to come up with evidence it isn't true.

What do you mean by definite? If we get rid of fee paying schools and keep the budget the same (and the budget is unlikely to significantly increase anytime soon) then there will be considerably less money per child. I can't see how this would mean anything other than lower average education. You're implying that it would mean a higher average and I'm asking how you see it being the case.

I think to improve things we have to dispell the myth that private school students are smarter or more gifted academically than those who dont get into college.

Who believes this myth? Certainly not me or the majority you're arguing against.

Because I think in a society where some children are going hungry it is wrong to pay more to increase a better off child's ability to progress to higher education.

Huh? What about spending money on anything else? Do you just see to your basic needs then give everything else to charity? Also, this didn't answer my question.

Then you misunderstand my position. As a capitalist I think that those who earn more money and are more gifted academically should have the fruits of their toils. I don't think that their monetary gains should make it more likely for thier children to progess in life over a child who did not have rich parents. Education should be so that all children could be rewarded for hard work and if they work hard enough they can get the fruits of that hard work. We currently have a system where more money equals a better student teacher ratio. Rewarding some children for being born into better off familes irespective of hard work is not a captialist principle.

So you think that people shouldn't be allowed spend money on their children because the children didn't earn the money themselves? That isn't capitalism, not by a long shot. Capitalism incentivises people with money and then rewards people who have money, such as allowing them to better educate their kids. You're talking more of a "to each according to his contribution" form of socialism.

So? I dont think that private school pupils are inherently more intelligent than any other pupil.

I didn't say they were. I asked how they're helped by the dissolution of the fee paying schools. I said that little to no fee paying students would end up going there only to show that there wouldn't be any substantive change to the conditions other than less money.

The real test for pupils in this country is when all pupils go to college. They all have the same lecturer, the same tutorials and the same labs. If private schools weren't a huge factor in academic performance then it would mean that by coincidence those private school students would happen to also be the most intelligent. The consequence of this would mean that those pupils would do far better in college than those from disadvantaged backgrounds and that simply isn't the case.

Sorry, but this is all incorrect. When they get to college they've all attained the same entry requirements. I would expect to see no substantive difference in intelligence between the fee and free paying students.

There's a general tone in all your posts that implies you think a fee paying education is somehow fake, and the results are unmerited. This is an incorrect point of view. The grades in a fee paying school may well be better than the average free school grades, but that's the result of it being a better education, not a fraudulent one. It also only holds true against the average, there are plenty of excellent free schools too.

I ask again: Is your aim to increase the level of education in non-fee paying schools or is it something else?

Icepick wrote: »

Why not just cut the crap and make them to set up DD into your account. After all they are rich, so you are entitled to what they have.

Most people who send their kids to private school are not rich