It’s generally the same individuals who crop up all the time shay, I suspect some of them have yet to leave their teenage yrs….

If you live in South county Dublin and have a daughter there are relatively few options on the non-fee paying secondary school front, mainly due to poor planning: throw up a load of houses and hope new schools materialise seems to have been the strategy.

There is a fundamental difference between education and goods like a car or a house. Education is, by its very nature, a social good. It influences the future of an individual on a profound level but also the future of the society as a whole, and as such that society has an interest in ensuring that educational resources are used effectively (for example that those with academic talent see it nurtured).

Those teachers should be reported, that is not acceptable in this day and age.

I wouldn’t have a problem with that as they wouldn’t be able to exclude people from accessing their teachers in the non-fee paying section.

Not necessarily, many non-fee paying schools operate a preferential admissions scheme based on siblings or children of past pupils, or religion. I don’t doubt that it is entirely possible for the new non-fee section to set it up to maximise the number of students attending that would also pay for the institute.

Alternatively the institute could operate in a more open manner and just provide additional grinds and tutorials on a private basis to all fee paying people regardless of what school they attend, in which case there would be no clear advantage to sending kids to the non-fee section.

I would have just as big a problem with a school operating such an admissions system (although siblings of current students is an obvious practical exception to that rule). If they must operate a preferential admissions system then let it be based on merit assessed by a fair and transparent exam.

The latter situation I would have no problem with. My problem isn’t with parents buying advantages for their children, we can never stop that. My problem is with taxpayers being denied access to the teachers they pay for based on their inability to afford exorbitant fees; I have a particular issue with schools then using those fees to attract the best teachers in the system, depriving the public, who pay their wages, the ability to be taught by them.

Those teachers could be attracted into the institutes on that basis. I suspect that starting down this route will change the current status quo, but not necessaries in the way the proponents of removing the funding expect. I could see free market economics actually exacerbating the problem where the best teachers end up in the private sector, especially as the economic and demographic issues in this country put further pressure on wages and pensions in the public sector.

Then so be it, such a situation would not only force our public schools to rise to the challenge in the face of such a stark and telling contrast, it would also produce no doubt innovative practises in these private schools that could be copied to the benefit of everybody. Most importantly, they would have achieved it on their own terms, without depriving taxpayers of access to services that they funded.

I suspect of course that this won’t occur. If private schools were the educational palaces that they would need to be for this to occur then they would not fear withdrawal of public funds and offer threats of closure.

We currently have the worst of both worlds, public funds going to support private schools which, it appears by their own admission now, do not provide a standard of education high enough to merit someone paying the full cost of it.

Just to be clear I am ambivalent on this topic, but your goal appears to be access for taxpayers, to the superior quality of teacher. You have then cast doubt on the idea that private schools provide a higher quality of education (I’d go along with that), and yet you assert that by removing the government funding they superior teaching abilities would be now accessible to all?

Now, are the people currently sending their kids to private schools not tax payers?

MathsDebater, I think the fundamental problem with your argument is one that doesn’t even touch on the issues of paying fees per se.

You’re effectively saying that teaching should be a profession with a set wage and that schools should not be free to reward/entice better staff with better salaries and conditions. That strikes me as inherently contrary to the basic ethics of labour management and an attack on the rights of workers.

Nope, not entirely sure where you got that idea. I have no problem with schools offering some teachers better salaries to entice them. My problem is with public funds being used to pay the salaries of teachers who are then made inaccessible to the public.

You seem to believe that either these schools will wither, or go fully public, or toe the line in some way and that the market for private education will evaporate. The service providers will continue to serve the market in a different way because the market exists, and good teachers will seek employment with the service providers because they will be paid better.

If you want to address unequal standards of education go ahead and do that, I am all in favour, starting with shorter summer holidays which is shown to have a positive impact on social mobility, this will have no impact on social mobility but is is based on ideology and prejudice that is being skilfully manipulated into spin by the political sector.

Maths doesn’t seem to be your strong suit, MathsDebater. If you support the rights of teachers to move from school to school based on who pays more, but you don’t support parents being allowed to put additional funds at the schools’ disposal to pay those teachers the extra money. Where the merry hell is the extra money supposed to come from?

And how, even the tooth fairy, leaves an extra few grand under the school’s pillow to pay for it; how is that any different from what you’re complaining about — it’s still schools who can afford to pay more acquiring the best teachers and making them ‘inaccessible’ to students in other schools.

Kids in private schools and their parents would never in a million years go within an asses roar of a public school because it would be abhorrent and distasteful to their sensibilities. They love their posh schools and airs and graces. Please give me a break. Is that the only argument they can come up with. Never heard suck bullshit in my life. Snobs hate public schools so thats never going to happen.

I agree Patrice. If every private school was to close tomorrow, firstly places wouldn’t be available for all the students that need them and secondly it would end up costing taxpayers more than it currently is. This would be due to the lack of private funds and fees previously paid by the parents. Also I think we could be fairly certain that children would suffer as a result of increased class sizes, and not enough funding per capita. You can be sure that the ‘voluntary contributions’ requested of parents would definitely increase to cover this. Now for the wealthy that would be fine, I’m sure they would manage; but for those who don’t have it….what then? I think it’s very unfair that children’s education should be sacrificed as a result. Sometimes the status quo is just fine.

Christopher, your impression that parents put their kids into fee paying schools solely due on elitist reasons is absolutely false. There are many reasons to do so; geography, experience, past record in going on to 3rd level attendance.

At the moment I am given to understand (I won’t state this as fact as I have not seen the data) that the state funding that goes to fee paying schools is less per pupil than what goes into public schools.

I would agree that schools should all be of similar performance but that is not something you’ll ever truly be able to rate as some areas may traditionally have a lot of school leavers who wish to go into trades (and thus the was league tables are drawn up is not reflective of the full experience of secondary schooling.)

There are certainly some measures around which parents should not be forced to choose to avoid or go to a particular school. Until we have a public system that is significantly more equitable I think it stinks of inequality to deny the public funding to any child’s education.

Well Christopher you can stop commenting now. We’ve had enough of your rubbish. I went to a private school and my sisters went to a public school so your argument is pure and utter sh***.

Very good Bob and that s the real issue.

Your logic is confusing the main point. Arguing that fee payer free up money is nonsense. The state is paying these schools millions. If wealthy people have to pay more thats your choice. Nobody is forcing you to go to elite schools so please don’t try to make us swallow that your are doing us all a favour by keeping your apartheid elitist system. Its insulting to our intelligence (even those of us who didn’t get an elitist education).

@christoper
I think you missed Peter’s point. Just calling it “nonsense ” isn’t very helpful.
It’s also factually incorrect

Um. You seem to be under the assumption, Christopher, that I send my son to a fee-paying school. Nor, did I go to one myself*. I don’t. I think you’re showing a fair amount of reverse-snobbery prejudice here (and in your other posts by the way) in simply lashing out at anyone who perceive (rightly or wrongly) to not be in the same class as you.

And I don’t think it’s insulting to anyone’s intelligence to expect them to have a basic level of primary school maths. Parents in fee paying schools hand over, on average, €3000. €1000 of which would otherwise have had to paid by the State had the child gone to a public school. That’s just *maths*.

(*No wait, I tell a lie, I did two years of Infants in Loretto College in the city centre before moving out to Tallaght. I guess those couple of years of scribbling with crayons makes me an inferior human being eh?)

If they are taken back into the public system, then at least those teachers will be accessible by everyone; we will no longer have a situation where the best teachers are poached by the private system and then sequestered away from the public, in schools that sometimes cost tens of thousands a year to attend, while still being funded by that same public.

I’d be curious about the average salary of a teacher in a public versus private school in Ireland. In the Quaker school I attended growing up, the teachers actually made less money than those who taught in a public school. Do you have any figures on this, MathsDebater?

Yeah, I mean we’re talking about 35,000 kids here. If they’re all the kids of millionaire elitists Ireland must be doing better than we thought!

But going to the credit union was your own choice to get an elitist education. Why should the bankrupt state support this “choice”.

But that arguement can be made about a lot of things, Christopher. Why should we give child benefit when people chose to have children? (I totally disagree with that line of thinking, by the way, since Ireland should in no way tolerate child poverty?)

But it’s important to understand the reasons why parents want to send their children to private schools, rather than insisting it’s always a “hatred of the poor.” Even if you’re opposed to the entrenchment of economic inequality (totally legitimate), do you not understand good reasons WHY parents would want their children to attend a school with a high percentage of students who move on to university?

Because, Christopher, nobody IS asking for the taxpayer to support that choice. Nobody IS asking for the taxpayer to pay any extra money to it AT ALL. All that’s being asked for is for children not to be stripped of the money they would have GOTTEN ANYWAY.

There is no state subsidy for grinds. Anyone can go get grinds, or not; their ability (or lack thereof) to pay for grinds does not (as it does in the case of fee paying schools) prevent them from accessing services that their tax euros are paying for.

MathsDebater, that’s actually his point, as I understand it.

If you pay extra for extra schooling, it doesn’t strip you of your right to the same basic schooling as everybody else.

So, if we accept that principle for people who take grinds, why not for those who pay extra for extra schooling through the fee paying system (we certainly don’t go around assuming that if someone can afford grinds, then they must have the cash to pay for their child’s entire education)? Why strip them of the same basic schooling rights as everybody else?

Peter, they still have the same rights as everyone else, they can go to the same schools as the rest of us attend for free. I have no problem with individuals choosing their schools, I have a problem with those schools having their teachers paid for by the state and then refusing to allow taxpayers equal access to those teachers.

If schools want to make a profit, or be exclusive, then they can do so if they wish; just without the tax money of those they seek to exclude.

But hey are not the “best Schools” listen to yourself. Discrimination is rife in your comment.

meant They are not the best schools.

Well, obviously “best” is a very subjective thing, Christopher. Ethos is important to some parents, Irish speaking is essential to others. But in terms of continuing onto third level, fee paying schools do seem to have an advantage. Does that make them the best? Not necessarily, but it’s understandable why that would be important to some parents.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/glenstal-abbey-crowned-irelands-top-school-186633.html

9/10 top boys’ schools in SundayTimes 2012 school leagues are fee paying.
6/10 girls’
7/10 mixed
A disproportionate weighting I would say.
Not quite sure how you saw a discriminatory comment in there?

Part of the “advantage”, though, is a)a middle class background and parents who are committed to their children’s education and b)an assumption in some parts of the country (South Dublin, I’m looking at you) that if you *are* a middle class parent with etc. etc. that you *must* send your child to private school or you are being somehow negligent/not interested in them getting a “good education”.

I was genuinely surprised when I started college that almost all my Southside peers with similar backgrounds/parental jobs to me had gone to private schools. Meanwhile most of the girls in my Northside state school went on to third level, and many of them excelled at it. It’s not like if you don’t go to a private school you’ll be somehow academically deprived, or that all state schools are just for giving a bare minimum education to the proles. I’m sure there are terrible state schools, and there are many that don’t have an academic focus, but many of them are at least as academically “good” as their private equivalents, if less moneyed, and it pisses me off when private school parents are depicted as “but they’re just prioritizing their children’s education” – as if that’s the only way to do it, and if you can’t get the money together to send your child to private school, well, whose fault is it when they turn out to be an illiterate savage?

Of course, they’re certainly buying other advantages for their children in terms of social contacts, cachet, etc., but that’s a whole ‘nother issue….

Also, FWIW, I am yer classic middle class could-probably-afford-it overeducated house-full-of-books parent and really cannot envisage choosing private education for my children. Which is not that I can’t see a couple of circumstances under which it would seem reasonable – if I was a committed religious person and there was no free school of my chosen denomination in the area, or if my child had a particular educational need that wasn’t being met in any of the local state schools, then yeah, maybe. “Just because private schools are better”? Nope.

(Also in defence of the abovementioned Southside parents, I think there are also fewer non-fee-paying schools per capita on the Southside, so in some circumstances it’s less “this school will provide a better education” and more “this school will provide an education that doesn’t involve my child travelling miles to school every day” .Though dunno how much of that is bad planning, and how much is lack of demand.)

I would totally agree with you, Lisa, that most of the middle class kids whose parents send them to private schools would have an advantage because they clearly value education and would seek to instill that in their children…but I think the parents who do work hard to scrape up the money are genuinely motivated by wanting to give their children as many opportunities as possible (and yes, probably including the social network).

The thing about this debate in Ireland is that I think so much of it is localised. The school situation in Dublin seems very different from a rural area and I disagree with Christopher that we can take one aspect of school without looking at the broader picture (there just aren’t a lot of non-RCC public schools outside of Dublin).

What gives your or others the right to a better education just because your parents either became very wealthy or inherited wealth. If people like you used your energy better towards building equality and making sure every school in the state is top class . For to long people born with the silver spoon have ruled every level of society in this country and this has to end. It should be all about equality,

What gives you the right to dictate how people should spend the 48% of their after-tax income? Is there a Cllr Brendan Killeavy-approved spending-list that I can refer to to avoid falling foul of your indignation?

I know all about SF/IRA justice and equality and won’t take any lectures on the score.

“Who is the Catholic”. Kingsmill, 10/2/75

Correction: 5/1/76

Oh Colin please please don’t give us that condescending twaddle. Social cohesion my ass. Yea ok lets just continue to give the wealthy more perks and gee you are so right. How stupid we were not to recognise the great service ye are doing for us by keeping costs down and paying for all your elitist add ons. The only silly sacrifices the wealthy make are having to defend themselves to the vast majority who are not so privileged. As for your Cider-swiling jonny-blue-smoking comment. Would it be more in your line to say to Prosecco-guzzling coke-sniffing classes that are the rich and wealthy. Keep your class discriminatory venom to yourself.

Never had the pleasure of coke-sniffing or prosecco-guzzling myself. But while we’re dealing out stereotypes, I think you might agree that the stereotype of the “elite” attending these schools is as accurate as the johnny-blue smoking proles who don’t.

It’s easy to see the millionaire financier dropping his son off in the Merc. The middle-class Mum who is sacrificing everything to get her daughter what she sees as the best education, or the rural protestant farmer who is taking charity handouts from the church to send his son to board in the only available non-catholic secondary school in the munster are not so visible.

Private schools are the patch. What I would really like is genuine free schools for all – where poor teachers are sacked, and good ones handsomely rewarded. But that is not going to happen. Just look at ASTI’s reaction to the revised Junior Cert program to see that despite their best efforts at PR, the interests of the teaching unions are deeply divergent from the interests of educating kids to their maximum potential – be they working-class, middle-class or one of these fabled “elite”

Colin, I think your views on the ASTI’s reaction to the JC reforms might be based on the assumption that the reforms are all good. There are good elements, no denying that but Quinn is being crafty here. I’m sure I’ll get red thumbed for that – but I will say that as a NQT I have no particular love for how the ASTI are complicit in the creation of a two-tier system in not fully protecting new entrants.

Other than that – I recognise the irony that Christopher appears to have missed. Christopher, you can’t seriously be still claiming that everyone in a fee paying school is loaded? And you can’t surely be saying that people who’s parents pay extra to send their kids to fee paying schools deserve to be discriminated against by removing support for those kids that every other child in the state gets?

School trips to India and places like that are covered by fees payed by parents or by the students doing worthwhile fundraising projects, not by the taxpayer.

No, technically the taxpayers money goes to pay the wages of teachers that they are then not allowed to be taught by.

Why send your child to Loretto and not your local public school?

This isn’t about religion – it is about the wealthy who can afford to pay their fair share but are being subsidized by the state to create class division.

There still isn’t a need for it, the state can, and would continue to, subsidise non-catholic schools in the same way as it funds all other schools, those schools would simply not be able to charge fees.

The majority of fee paying schools are not secular.

Una can you define “fair share”? The wealthy carry the bulk of the nations tax burden already what is fair? Is it fair to take away government subsidies for their kids while taxing them more to pay for other kids education? Is it fair to take away all their child benefit while taxing them more to pay for people who couldnt afford to raise kids but had them anyway? Do their children not have the same rights as every other child in the country?

They may not be secular, but a lot of them do cater to minority religions. I would be uncomfortable with sending any children to Catholic schools, and unfortunately, that might mean paying for an alternative if I end up living in a very rural area.

However, I can see a very good argument that the Irish government should tie this money to a certain amount of subsidised/free places for students from less wealthy backgrounds.

They do have the same rights as everyone else Cian, they can feel free to go to a normal free school if they wish, like anyone else. If they want the bells and whistles of private education then they can pay for those, themselves, without help from taxpayers who are denied access to those luxuries made possible by their tax money.

“The wealthy carry the bulk of the nations tax burden”. Hah!
The wealthy receive the bulk of the nation’s wealth in grants, subsidies, back-handers and all the rest and let us not forget all wealth is created by workers.

Cian what planet are you on. The disadvantaged low paid and middle earners and poor are the people actually pay more. As a percentage they give most. We all know in this recession the top earners have had their incomes increase and the lowest in society have had massive cuts and their quality of life and services. Don’t give me this bullshit that the rich pay the most. look at top paying consultants. This government won’t even cut their wages they are so afraid of them.

@ Ciaran,from the god squad………
Think you commented on the wrong story mate,us normal people are concerned about our children’s education,not about that hocus pocus you seem to be caught up in.

@christopher
Please explain “as a percentage they pay most”
I genuinely dont understand how you arrive at that. A low earner on €22,000 pays €2,500 in tax. A comparatively high earner on €60,000 will pay a little over €20,000 in tax.
That’s about 11% for the low earner and 33% for the high earner.

@Christopher top 10% of earners in Ireland pay 60% of the nations tax income. That figure is surprisingly concentrated into the top 5% but I don’t have the figure to hand.

@ Cian Doherty

Since the 1980’s taxes on the wealthy have been falling. Taxes on the rich are currently at a 20 year low.

The RC church can hand over as many schools as they want but that wont change any
thing.

Anglican/Methodist/Presbyterian/and those of other religious backgrounds want to send their kids to schools with an Anglican/Methodist/Presbyterian ethos.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true, Dearbhla. I’m from a minority Christian background and I’d be perfectly happy with my children attending a secular school. There are just as many people from those backgrounds who aren’t religious as there are Catholics who have left the church and don’t wish to send their children to RCC schools.

No one has a right to religious education at the expense of the state.

Ciaran how do you explain that even in areas where there are interdenominational schools-community, comprehensive and vocational,parents choose to send their children to schools which cater for religious minorities?

@Dale – I’m not from the “God Squad”. The vast majority of the State’s public schools have a Catholic ethos. If many of these schools dropped this Catholic ethos, parents from religious minorities won’t feel the need to send their children to these boarding schools.

It creates a two tiered system. One for the people who can afford it and one for those who can’t. The assumption is that there’s a better quality of education on offer in a private school, which is why parents pay extra for them. In reality, there’s the added bonus of having an influential network deriving from your time in the school. The argument is that it defeats the goal of equal social mobility for all if access to the top tier of education is based on an ability to pay.

Kevin, 2-tier systems do not exist because people choose to go private – whether it’s health or education. Two-tier systems exist because the systems provided by the state are often hopelessly inefficient and ineffective, and create layers of bureaucracy that serve to do nothing more than perpetuate itself to the benefit of the “insiders” in that system.

It would be impossible to have a two-tier system in health or education if those running the public systems delivered a top service, and which is measured by outcomes rather than by the quantities of cash they are capable of consuming.

Private schools are a reflection that a significant number of people believe that paying for their childrens’ education will put their interests a little further up the usual pecking order of trade unions and bureaucrats who dominate every other aspect of publicly-provided services in this country.

Sounds very much like bleating leftie Sinn Fein ‘speak’ to me. ‘egalitarian’ and ‘meritocratic’ sound impressive. Must have been to a private school then !

How can defending disadvantaged schools as opposed to state sponsored subsided private schools be described as leftie Sinn Fein. If it means leftie Sinn Fein to stand up for the poor and low paid and ask for a more just and equal society then I’d rather be a leftie Sinn Feiner any day. God forbid the day we lick the asses of the rich and pander to them.

Well said MarkandAnna and Christopher! perfect points.

What do you mean by a meritocratic school system?

Come on Christopher,

Who uses these words ‘ egalitarian meritocratic’
Lefties and Crusties and most of the lefties don’t even know what they mean they just hear other lefties using them and think that it makes them sound ‘ Privately educated’

Yes I agree its pathetic. Can just see the them now going to the community colleges and yummy mummy dropping them off in her Mercedes. Please don’t insult our intelligence. We all know the wealthy love their exclusive schools where they don’t have to mix with common rabble (as they see non wealthy people).

Not true disadvantaged schools receive more funding than regular public schools. Look up ‘DEIS schools’. I went to one and I remember my career guidance councillor saying it was helpful if you were applying for a grant or the access programme. They receive more funding for extra teachers and facilities. You’ve also made the incorrect assumption that everyone who goes to private school is wealthy. There are a lot of middle class families who send their kids to these schools and would send them to a public school if the state wasn’t covering some cost of wages. If they cut the subsidy they need to be prepared to put the money towards regular schools as they get an influx of new students and class sizes grow. Your argument is based on stereotypical ‘rich bashing’ and you need to ground yourself in reality and consequences before you
comment any further.

So the children of a privileged elite grow up with other children of privileged elite and go on to be in privileged positions, the fee paying schools are an enabler of this patter I will grant you, but so would high house prices in a catchment area for a non-fee paying school. Removing the government aspect will have little or no impact on that surely?

thats the whole point, the state should not be supporting these elitist clubs, its bad for society

But it wont remove it.

It”s NOT about religion. It’s about the wealthy who can pay their fair share.

Are u saying Irish classes are not a necessity?

Irish classes aren’t a necessity. Basic literacy and numeracy are necessities because you use those skills every day.

I agree. But Irish is also important to learn as an Irish person.

Why?

This idea that it is the mega wealthy only who send their children to private schools is ridiculous. The vast majority of people in private schools are middle class.

And where will the money come from to build the facilities for these children when they have to be educated in non fee paying schools?

Mary,

Having a non subsidized private education sector creates a more divided society. Your example of the Uk process this. In Ireland, a family on the average industrial wage can decide to save for (subsidized) private education. In the Uk private education is to expensive for the majority to consider. This creates a greater Gulf between the wealthiest and poorest in Britain. I went to private school in Dublin with people from many different circumstances, including sons of poor widows etc. What we have in Ireland is not elitist!

I really don’t think it’s a plan to “take over the country.” Parents quite logically want to give their children as many opportunities as possible. You can make a legitimate argument that they shouldn’t be able to buy those advantages and privileges, but it’s a bit silly to doubt the intentions of parents who do so. I don’t think wealthy people love their children any less.

Nick nobody is saying “they shouldn’t be able to buy those advantages and privileges”. But the state shouldn’t be paying for those advantages and privileges. Why should some schools have no heating and others are in the leafy suburbs and countryside with top facilities all subsidised by the state? NO that is class discrimination and has to be stopped, end of story.

Well, Una is. Like I said, there’s definitely a legitimate argument there, although I think defunding private schools and the secularisation of Irish schools should go hand in hand. I am deeply uncomfortable with some of the views of the Catholic Church and it would be nice for me to be able to send my children to a school which is not based in that ethos without having to pay an extortionate amount.

But what is ridiculous is when people assume that wanting to send your children to private school is, as Una put it “wealthy looking to take over the country” rather than people just wanting to give their children opportunities. We can have this debate without vilifying people who want to send their kids to public school…

I hear what you are saying Nick but this whole religious issue is a separate issue form funding. People are getting diverted here.

And I disagree with you, simply because I think that parents have to make their choices as they find them. I consider it unlikely that if subsidies stop, these schools wouldn’t raise fees. And I don’t think it’s a good idea to limit access to non-Catholic schools without a viable alternative.

An honest question, where do draw the line of “wealthy” as regards earnings Una?

Yeah, because bringing up home truths about Sinn Fein, their ambivalent and selective approach to equality and justice is called “losing a debate”.

Saints, the lot of ye.

So, Brendan, after I’ve had 52% of my marginal income (PAYE, BTW) confiscated, what would be Sinn Fein approved spending with the remainder?

I’m afraid I’m all good for printer cartridges at the moment.

I fail to see how this will do anything to address elitism other than make you feel better through schadenfreude, if you want to do something about elitism then go ahead and do that, but this ain’t it.

Seeing as I went to a state school myself, and my own child goes to one, I don’t know how it’s ‘schadenfreude’ to want decent public education for everyone, rather than a two-tier system that entrenches privilege and inequality.

As did I, I’m simply pointing out that this is the best possible outcome

schadenfreude \SHOD-n-froy-duh\ , noun:
A malicious satisfaction obtained from the misfortunes of others.

And the schadenfreude would be arising from the misfortune those currently attending private schools, which was relatively obvious I thought. And to clarify I wasn’t suggesting that you were going to experience it, again I was suggesting that was the only gain to be expected.

Here,here.

I’m quite aware of what schadenfreude means. As it happens I think children who attend private schools would get a better education in a decent state school, but this is besides the point. The ‘misfortune’ that you are talking about -having to move to a different school, or having to pay more to be educated in an exclusive institution- is hardly a misfortune when compared to the indignities other citizens are being forced to endure at present, on account of the same cost-cutting drive: for instance, the withdrawal of special needs assistance, the withdrawal of home help hours, the closure of respite services, cuts to social welfare payments, and so on.

I don’t agree with inflicting cruelty for any reason, least of all for the sake of it, and it would be a good idea, in the unlikely event that a transition to a fully public education system were ever on the cards (and I don’t believe it is), to talk about how one might mitigate the negative effects on children attending schools that are currently private.

However, the deeper political question -beyond the fantasy participatory budgeting people are involved in here- is whether the priorities of government, particularly with regard to education, reflect those of a democratic society. Clearly they do not; and the whining from those with a vested interest in using the State to maintain entrenched privilege is all the more galling in the light of what so many other people are being compelled to endure.

This has been mentioned several times that teachers are paid more by private schools, but does anyone actually have data on this? As I said earlier, teachers at my Quaker school were paid less than public school teachers, so I’d be interested to see the Irish trend.