Funding private schools - A policy of envy won’t fix anything

Minister of State Alan Kelly’s budget kite-flying about funding private schools was as craven as it was irrational.

His assertion that “in principle, I think the day of being able to give €96m to €100m to private schools is... going to come to an end” may have been a bone thrown to assuage his party colleagues so unhappy — and rightly so — with the shenanigans of Health Minister James Reilly, but as a contribution to the debate about how we fix this country, it was worse than childish. It was class-war bluster straight out of the Arthur Scargill handbook of envy as policy.

The reality is this. Every child gets more or less the same funding from the State to complete their second-level education. In a society that aspires to be fair, how else can it be? A child cannot be denied opportunity because their family cannot pay for education. Equally, a child cannot be limited because their parents decide, after paying all of their taxes, to augment their child’s school’s funding by paying fees.

This basic principle is underpinned by our tax system, acknowledged last week as one of Europe’s most progressive. That is how we share the wealth of the nation, so to suggest to families, lucky or resolute enough to be in a position to do so, that using their resources to educate their children is unacceptable is plain wrong.

Putting aside altogether the important role private schools play in supporting minority religions, the idea that bankrupting these schools would save the State money is laughable. Where would these students go but to a state school, putting further pressure on an already splitting-at-the-seams system?

Every aspect of state spending is being reviewed and it is probable that supports for private schools — already reduced twice in three years — will be cut again. So be it, as long as it is proportionate and fair. However, the tacit message in Mr Kelly’s weekend stir-the-pot foolishness was that most, if not all, state funding of private schools would end.

This would be unacceptable in principle and in practice. In principle, that would tell people that they could not use their after-tax income as they saw fit, and in practice it would exacerbate funding difficulties in education. Result? A lose-lose situation.

And, if Government decides to make it impossible to sustain private education, why not private health care? After all, it’s the same principle, applied in a different setting. Why not pensions?

If private schools are made unsustainable, it will make little or no difference to very wealthy parents but the middle of the road, the coping classes who put so much store in education, will be denied that most basic of rights — doing what they think best for their children.

The Labour party has taken an emotional position on private schools, but maybe the next time Mr Kelly is afforded a public platform he, as a minister, might address Government policy rather than party policy. He could, for instance, consider the Programme for Government commitment to transparency and explain his own little, home-town shenanigans. Why, during his tenure as Minister of State for Public and Commuter Transport, was a disastrously expensive, unsustainable rail link to his political base at Nenagh reopened?