MCW - €4.5k per pupil, per year subsidy to private schools


They should also cap booking fees at reasonable admin costs rather than the current racket.


Booking fees to go under the planned legislation.

We’ll never be able to improve the poorer quality schools to the standard of the top dogs whilst teachers cannot be fired. So while the unions continue to have a veto, school standards in some areas will stay as is.

Have’nt heard the ever pious Aodhan O’Riordain say anything yet on this part of champagne socialist Quinn’s plans yet…and Aodhan does like to see the elite brought down a peg or 5 and conservatism banished the dark ages!


Public Schools Only AFAIK. So Private schools can continue to use this racket to raise obscene amounts of money relative to costs and thereby deter undesirables while public schools must aborb the admin costs. Seems muddled.


You’d likely have more success improving the poorer quality schools if you could fire the parents.


Depressingly true. Much of the damage has already been done before the poor kids ever start school. :frowning:


I have applied for a number of schools (private) recently and I don’t consider €50 an unreasonable application fee.


I thought you had to put the names down at birth for the really posh places? Pitter patter of tiny feet Chez LL? :slight_smile:


OK they suck you in by getting you to sign up for €50. They then (in some cases used to) look for major wedge to confirm in 5th year. Some cynically moved the collection date forward when takings dropped towards the end of the Celtic Tiger before dropping the demand like a stone. Pure extortion.


Only just getting round it.


It’s the same thing.


So you saying that not only do you approve of private schools receiving public funds, but you think they should be allowed to discriminate against paying customers (who are also taxpayers) on the basis that the pupils parents didn’t attend? So much for promoting upward social mobility


it’s all about the old school tie network…got to keep the plum establishment jobs for the glitterati

I’m still surprised at the lack of comment on what Quinn said in the media. Perhaps if the likes of O’Reilly, Shatter or McDowell said it, we’d have seen a much bigger backlash. It was just such a blatant admission of how the ‘system’ has to be allowed to continue on in favour of the select few, that it shocked me


Not exactly related but interesting none the less. Did anyone watch the Scholarship on RTE Monday. Basically Belvedere give 15 scholarship places (about 10% of their intake) each year to a Social Diversity programme and the first programme followed the selection process and the next week follows their first year.

The scholarship programme more needs based and how the child will adapt than just academics. There were five children followed, two from Darndale, two from the inner city, one traveller child, one child of Polish parents, a real mix of boys. The selection process was not particulary interesting but very interested to see how the children get on and whether they feature children who have completed the full secondary school cycle. Does going to this school give them significantly better achievements than if they go to the local secondary in their disadvantaged areas?


Damn those elistist Belvedere parents. Employing extra teachers, paying for capital investments in the school, and paying for 10% of the students to come from different backgrounds.


Yeah they’re going it partially with state funding too! This must be stopped!


Part 1 of the Belvedere show

#397 … -1.1525591

I recall a debate re. whether Sandford Park was “Protestant”


Except the parents don’t pay. BC have set up a charity that fundraises for the fees of the kids. A cynic might say that BC have set up a charity with the sole aim of gaining 10% more revenue for their business.

It would sit a lot better if indeed the rich parents paid for the poor kids but that’s not the case.


“It would sit a lot better if indeed the rich parents paid for the poor kids but that’s not the case.”

The parents in Belvedere pay their taxes too. Why do you say they are not contributing for the poorer kids too?

I am taken aback by the assumption that parents who educate their kids privately are rich.We are lucky enough to be able to chose to send our kids to private schools but our friends, who don’t, in Ireland and England, have a lot more financial freedom than us. We have one car, a mini, and it is over ten years old. we have only ever had two family holidays, one in Ireland with relatives.

Here in the UK it is a lot more expensive for school fees than Ireland. Increasingly it feels as though private education is for the rich here and I find that very disappointing and I think quite dangerous. Here it is becoming a bubble, the realm of hedge funders, bankers and top lawyers.

One thing about scholarships in my kids’ school is, no-one knows who gets a scholarship and who doesn’t. It is nobody’s business.

I felt quite sad for the kids in that Vimeo film of Belvedere. It is disappointing to see them discussing their aspirations to go this school so young. I remember very vividly how our parish priest in Coolock used to parade a group of us out in his old parish in county Dublin. We never realised we were deprived until he told us to describe our home situations to his cigar smoking, piano playing friends. On reflection, I am mortified. At the time it was quite humiliating and to be honest, it put a bit of a chip on my shoulder. I only watched that film for a few minutes, it felt like déjà vu. If they really want those kids on scholarships in Belvedere to aspire and blend in, they need to stop highlighting their poor backgrounds and just make sure they feel like they are accepted and make efforts to help blend them in.

They should never have made that program. They have just set the scholarship kids apart from the rest of their year. They may as well make them wear a badge in their chests.


Yes we all pay taxes (even if we don’t have kids) but I was responding to the specific assumption that additional fees are paid by parents of children attending BC to fund this scheme - this is not the case.

Having that choice is what defines you as ‘rich’ in this context. You are rich relative to those that do not have such a choice, notwithstanding its admirable the sacrifices you make etc.

I agree completely with your remarks about the lack on anonymity in the scheme. If the scheme is about increasing enrollments by 10%, rather than having a social motive, then the making of a documentary to advertise it would seem to make sense. If the scheme is really aimed at social good them the documentary and the removal of anonymity, makes no sense.