Public funds + private fees = the fairest deal taxpayers can get

ON the face of it, it’s a tempting proposal. Withdraw public money from fee-paying schools so the taxpayer no longer has to pay for their teachers’ salaries.

Save €77.5m each year and use it for a more worthy purpose than subsiding the education of the rich.

At present the Department of Education pays all teachers' salaries. However, unlike Britain and the United States, the government doesn't usually own the schools. The majority of schools are owned by the private sector, in the form of religious orders or community trusts.

Some of these schools charge fees to parents. Most don't, and those that do not are given an additional grant for each student, as well as preferential consideration for building projects.

The system works. Every university in the world takes our Leaving Cert results seriously. Even back in the bad old days of inefficient state-owned businesses and political corruption, our education sector kept its distance from government and as a result kept its integrity. Now in Britain and particularly in America the model we adopted in the 1920s is coming into fashion.

Education systems are almost hopelessly complex and one small change can have unforeseen yet far-reaching effects. Noel Dempsey's apparent desire to change the funding of Irish schools is a good example of this a proposal that looks simple on the surface, but on closer examination is a non-starter because it turns out to have political, financial, educational, pluralist and constitutional implications.

Firstly, the politics. There's more chance of Michael McDowell singing the Hallelujah Chorus at the next Sinn Féin Árd Fheis than the PDs tolerating a €3,000 rise in school fees. Their constituency is drawn from people who already pay €3,000 to €4,000 per child in fees. As far as they're concerned, the government should be thanking them for footing the bill, not penalising them further. Indeed, it's surprising that the PDs haven't already been speaking out on the issue further proof, they might say, that Fianna Fáil needs a watchdog.

What's more, the government wouldn't actually save money by not paying some teachers' salaries in fact, it might even end up paying extra. At present, the government pays the salaries of teachers in private schools, but little else. Non-fee paying schools get a capitation grant for every student, and get preference for capital grants. If fee-paying schools had to pay their own teachers, most would simply opt into the non-fee paying

sector, leaving the Government with the headache of increased capitation and

capital grants.

Alternatively, fee-paying schools which wish to continue as such would have to impose an unreal increase in school fees in order to pay their teachers' salaries. Instead of the benign private school system which we have a place where moderately well-off people contribute some of their financial resources to the education of their children we would end up with Eton-style schools for the filthy rich. Private education would not be abolished. It would merely become the preserve of society's super-élite.

Educationally, it makes little sense to penalise fee-paying schools. Year-in, year-out, they produce excellent academic results. Contrary to what is often claimed, this isn't because they've better facilities. While a handful are superbly equipped, most are surprisingly primitive and wouldn't hold a candle to a brand new, custom-built community school.

But fee-paying schools have certain characteristics. They tend to be single-sex. Uniform codes are often stricter than elsewhere; discipline in general is old-style. Parents are pushy about results. It is drummed into young students that their school has a tradition of excellence. A huge emphasis is placed on school sport, with the rugby finals in particular being a staple of the Munster and Leinster sporting calendars.

Perhaps one of the most noticeable things about fee-paying schools is the loyalty which they engender in their students. My own school days were happy ones. I attended a non fee-paying co-educational day-school where teachers were highly motivated and results were good. My Leaving Cert class left with happy memories. But we haven't seen each other since. By contrast, most of the people I know who attended fee-paying schools have frequent contact with fellow students thanks to the presence of active past pupils unions. I don't know if these associations confer any economic or professional advantage. But there is certainly a social benefit.

All this is easily caricatured. You know the type braying, hip-flask toting middle-aged men with the right accent and the right connections, but with appalling attitude. But for each one of these, there are thousands of ordinary decent people who went though the fee-paying sector and value it so highly that they'll pay through the nose to send their own children back to their old school and in the process, lighten the taxpayer's load.

THERE is also a pluralist argument for giving fee-paying schools state support. Of the 58 fee-paying schools, 21 are Protestant. These already receive preferential treatment in that they are allowed charge fees but get the same grants as non fee-paying schools. This 'best of both worlds' arrangement is to ensure minority rights, and it's significant that in the years when this country was a cold house for Protestants, the Protestant education sector thrived. I wonder how Northern Protestants might feel if the Dublin government announces plans to cut adrift the minority church.

The final problem with Mr Dempsey's idea is that it would probably take a constitutional referendum to put it into effect. In Ireland, parents have constitutional recognition as the primary educators of their children.

Jewish parents can choose Jewish schools, Irish language enthusiasts have set up the Gaelscoileanna, and so on. The government helps each community to own its own schools by paying the teachers. It's pluralism in action, and has been the system here almost since the foundation of the State. Stop paying the salaries of teachers in some schools, and you're saying that parents who choose one sort of school (in this case, one that charges them fees) don't have the same rights as parents who choose another type.

Perhaps the department of Education took legal advice on this constitutional quagmire. If so, it would be interesting to read it.

In Britain, the education system endures a sort of Maoist permanent revolution, with endless new schemes and revised structures. There, hardly a week goes by with another kite being flown in the media (this week it's that the GSCE exams equivalent of our Junior Cert are to be abolished). Teachers are demoralised and parents who can afford it pay around stg£10,000 a year to put a child into a private school.

It's a nightmare scenario. So the next time our minister for education has a new idea, his secretary should gently take him by the arm and whisper 'remember Britain' in his ear.

One Sunday newspaper writer opined that Noel Dempsey "has one characteristic that many of his colleagues in Leinster House are missing a sense of justice". No doubt he has. But to float a proposal that hasn't a snowball's chance of being adopted and which will unsettle teachers and parents into the bargain is, to say the least, unwise.