My taxes pay for everyones children to be educated at a public school including rich peoples kids. Why should I cough up to help pay for rich peoples kids to be educated at a private school? >:(

bludger wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 7:10pm:

My taxes pay for everyones children to be educated at a public school including rich peoples kids. Why should I cough up to help pay for rich peoples kids to be educated at a private school? >:(

Because it's cheaper than building more public schools.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

bludger wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 7:10pm: My taxes pay for everyones children to be educated at a public school including rich peoples kids. Why should I cough up to help pay for rich peoples kids to be educated at a private school? >:( Because it's cheaper than building more public schools.

Bullshit. If that was the case no public schools would ever have been built. Private schools are usually run by scammers such as religious institutions.

The first class Finnish publicly owned and run education system proves that a good education system shouldn't be available only to those who can afford it !

Sir lastnail wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 9:19pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 9:12pm: bludger wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 7:10pm: My taxes pay for everyones children to be educated at a public school including rich peoples kids. Why should I cough up to help pay for rich peoples kids to be educated at a private school? >:( Because it's cheaper than building more public schools. Bullshit.

No, it's a fact.

The kids have to go to school somewhere.

If the private schools didn't exist, more public schools would have to be built. 
The cost of building and maintaining public schools is much higher than the contributions given to the private schools.

No BS.  All quite simple.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 9:19pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 9:12pm: bludger wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 7:10pm: My taxes pay for everyones children to be educated at a public school including rich peoples kids. Why should I cough up to help pay for rich peoples kids to be educated at a private school? >:( Because it's cheaper than building more public schools. Bullshit. If that was the case no public schools would ever have been built. Private schools are usually run by scammers such as religious institutions. The first class Finnish publicly owned and run education system proves that a good education system shouldn't be available only to those who can afford it !

It is only cheaper if the parents are willing to pay the extra for private schooling.

Not ... not a single red cent of tax payer money should go to private schools .... except for when the kids doorknock parliament selling chocolates as part of school fundraising, in that case I'll make an exception

Two "GEMS" !



Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 10:09am:

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 23rd, 2011 at 8:26pm: My dad always used to joke my schooling cost the same as a new ford falcon each year - that measurement would still seem to hold true. Yep, my father once starting calc'ing up the total sunk cost of my sister and I over the course of early years to leaving uni. He stopped counting after working out he could buy several porsches with the amount. It ran into hundreds of thousands I think. Such is life.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 1:37pm:

I don't know why there is always this fuss about funding to private schools etc. At the end of the day, we need to treat all equally. In my personal experience, kids at schools in the public sector do just as well in some respects as we do. It's just all sour grapes. People need to stop being concerned with this and get on with it. I don't lose any sleep about public v private arrangements at all. We all get the same chances in life from what I can see.

Johnsmith wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:14pm:

Not ... not a single red cent of tax payer money should go to private schools .... except for when the kids doorknock parliament selling chocolates as part of school fundraising, in that case I'll make an exception

If you don't pay for my kids, why should any of my taxes should go to paying for yours?

Each child should receive the same money, whether public or private.

Otherwise what is the point of paying for private?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 1:00am:

Johnsmith wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:14pm: Not ... not a single red cent of tax payer money should go to private schools .... except for when the kids doorknock parliament selling chocolates as part of school fundraising, in that case I'll make an exception If you don't pay for my kids, why should any of my taxes should go to paying for yours? Each child should receive the same money, whether public or private.

Andrei, you've said many times that your parents received no money for health care, education, university, and that you've never sniffed from the public trough in your life.

You've compared your upbringing to growing up in the great depression. You struggled - although I think you were referring to passing your exams here.

Now you're saying we should all be equal. Are you really saying that kids who go to state schools should receive the SAME funding as the rich kids who go to private schools?

Forgive me for saying this, Andrei, but you're starting to sound like a socialist.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 1:00am:

Johnsmith wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:14pm: Not ... not a single red cent of tax payer money should go to private schools .... except for when the kids doorknock parliament selling chocolates as part of school fundraising, in that case I'll make an exception If you don't pay for my kids, why should any of my taxes should go to paying for yours? Each child should receive the same money, whether public or private. Otherwise what is the point of paying for private?

My taxes go towards providing the infrastructure and resources required to educate your children. It is up to you whether your children access public education or not. If you choose to send your children to private schools that is your prerogative. I don't believe my tax dollars should subsidise your personal preferences. It is much cheaper to fund one system to provide a satisfactory level of education than have those funds split over numerous independent schools. Therefore, I don't believe it holds that private school students should receive the same level of public funding as their public counterparts.

However, our education system has evolved with significant private participation. Removing all public funding from private schools would be extremely costly to the public in the short to medium term. It would be irrational to increase the tax burden while simultaneously jeopardising our ability to educate our children. Further, the private schools provide diversity and competition which is always healthy in any system. On these ground some subsidisation of private schools seems justifiable and sensible. What level of subsidisation would require a whole lot more thought.

What is abundantly clear is that our public system is chronically underfunded, and this is compromising our educational standards. To insist that public investment in the public education system should be matched by a similar infusion of public funds into the private system, creates a fiscal burden which makes adequate funding increasingly unlikely.

As usual nails you have no bloody idea what you are talking about.Yes I know the figures are seven years old but there are from a Parliamentary Inquiry.

So tell me nails where and how does NSW fit in 2012 probably 400,000 students from the private sector  into the public system?

NSW schools.


Private schools  1995  865    Students  300,614

Private schools  2000   901    Students  334,693

Private schools  2005 912       Students  367,247

Public primary schools 1995  1,715   High schools  388  Total students  755,707


Public primary schools 2000  1,713   High schools  393   Total students  761,836


Total primary schools  2005   1,718   High schools  397   Total students  741,578


http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/6ADAFA76AB5FEF0ACA2574560021162C/$File/Education2FINALINDEX.pdf

I thought private schools weren't funded by the government at all. I thought that was why they were "private." They were only for rich people. :D

bludger wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 7:10pm:

My taxes pay for everyones children to be educated at a public school including rich peoples kids. Why should I cough up to help pay for rich peoples kids to be educated at a private school? >:(

I dont care about the propaganda or the statistics. A private school is a private school it should not receive public money. It should be made to follow a state curriculum though to avoid having a country like america where students only get taught subjects "approved" by their nutter parents.

SOB

It should be made to follow a state curriculum though to avoid having a country like america where students only get taught subjects "approved" by their nutter parents.


Oh dear, another dummy from the public system.

Private schools do follow the State curriculum.

Do you really think the private schools set their own HSC exams??

So you think we should cripple the public school system and lower the standards for all children just to satisfy your stubbornness over the semantics of public and private?

I dont care about the propaganda or the statistics. A private school is a private school it should not receive public money.


I have caught one bus in the last 23 years and maybe 4 trains but I still subsidise them. Don't know why if you say we should have user pays with private schools..

blackadder wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 9:44am:

I dont care about the propaganda or the statistics. A private school is a private school it should not receive public money. I have caught one bus in the last 23 years and maybe 4 trains but I still subsidise them. Don't know why if you say we should have user pays with private schools..

We pay for the public stuff. Private stuff is privately funded. Thats what private means.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 9:52am:

blackadder wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 9:44am: I dont care about the propaganda or the statistics. A private school is a private school it should not receive public money. I have caught one bus in the last 23 years and maybe 4 trains but I still subsidise them. Don't know why if you say we should have user pays with private schools.. We pay for the public stuff. Private stuff is privately funded. Thats what private means. SOB

What about when the State Government builds a hospital and gives it to the Catholic Church to run and the Hospital refuse to do terminations there?

SOB don't you think there is more at stake here than semantic consistency?

blackadder wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 10:05am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 9:52am: blackadder wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 9:44am: I dont care about the propaganda or the statistics. A private school is a private school it should not receive public money. I have caught one bus in the last 23 years and maybe 4 trains but I still subsidise them. Don't know why if you say we should have user pays with private schools.. We pay for the public stuff. Private stuff is privately funded. Thats what private means. SOB What about when the State Government builds a hospital and gives it to the Catholic Church to run and the Hospital refuse to do terminations there?

I wouldn't like the govt giving things to a religious organisation anyway. But I addressed that earlier in the thread im sure.

Yeah I did: "It should be made to follow a state curriculum though to avoid having a country like america where students only get taught subjects "approved" by their nutter parents."

Private means private. You arent forced to go to a religious hospital though. 7th day adventists have their own hospitals. We dont interfere.

SOB

blackadder wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 9:07am:

It should be made to follow a state curriculum though to avoid having a country like america where students only get taught subjects "approved" by their nutter parents. Oh dear, another dummy from the public system. Private schools do follow the State curriculum. Do you really think the private schools set their own HSC exams??

I didnt say they didnt. But the yanks do not. Im just saying we shouldn't bring in their system. "Dummy".

SOB

It should be made to follow a state curriculum though to avoid having a country like america where students only get taught subjects "approved" by their nutter parents.

Do you not comprehend the highlighted section. It is aquote from your post.

blackadder wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 10:42am:

It should be made to follow a state curriculum though to avoid having a country like america where students only get taught subjects "approved" by their nutter parents. Do you not comprehend the highlighted section. It is aquote from your post.

Yeah but taken WITH THE REST OF THE SENTENCE it says what i said it says.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 10:46am:

blackadder wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 10:42am: It should be made to follow a state curriculum though to avoid having a country like america where students only get taught subjects "approved" by their nutter parents. Do you not comprehend the highlighted section. It is aquote from your post. Yeah but taken WITH THE REST OF THE SENTENCE it says what i said it says. SOB

Oh god!!!!!!!!

Uncle Meat wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 9:25pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 9:19pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 9:12pm: bludger wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 7:10pm: My taxes pay for everyones children to be educated at a public school including rich peoples kids. Why should I cough up to help pay for rich peoples kids to be educated at a private school? >:( Because it's cheaper than building more public schools. Bullshit. No, it's a fact. The kids have to go to school somewhere. If the private schools didn't exist, more public schools would have to be built.  The cost of building and maintaining public schools is much higher than the contributions given to the private schools. No BS.  All quite simple.

No it's bullshit.

Schools should be run as an essential service to the public. They should NOT be run as a business trying to extract the last cent out of the government and parents.

The money that has been doled out to private schools for decades could have been used to build more public schools.

The idea that the more money you pay the better the education is totally absurd. All kids should have the best education irrespective of socio economic background.

Just look at the Finnish school system. All publicly owned and run with the best teachers money can buy and no daggy uniforms which is just another scam to make money :(

You definitely must be a liberal voter.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 9:52am:

blackadder wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 9:44am: I dont care about the propaganda or the statistics. A private school is a private school it should not receive public money. I have caught one bus in the last 23 years and maybe 4 trains but I still subsidise them. Don't know why if you say we should have user pays with private schools.. We pay for the public stuff. Private stuff is privately funded. Thats what private means. SOB

If they want to run it as a business then there should be no government funding for any of it !!

Nails owns a condom recycling company. That makes him an international businessman with knowledge that is far superior to us mere mortals.

If you run a private-public education system, it should be two tier.

That's the whole of market economics - you pay for something, you get it better.

So the Government if it wishes to fund education should fund each pupil the same amount.

Then the amount you pay in private education is the difference.
It's equality - you pay everyone the same.

I don't see why tax dollars should go to one set of people and not the other.
How is that fair?

Let's give everyone the same go in life.

I have seen several articles over the years indicating that private schools receive MORE funding per student than public schools from taxes.

LifeMasque wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:08am:

I have seen several articles over the years indicating that private schools receive MORE funding per student than public schools from taxes.

WRONG.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Schools should be run as an essential service to the public. They should NOT be run as a business trying to extract the last cent out of the government and parents. You definitely must be a liberal voter.

Yeah, I agree.  However ...

... if these private school "businesses" go broke all of a sudden (through lack of funding), where do you think all of the children will end up?

How do you like the idea of 50 kids or more in public school classrooms?

Or, do you think the government will simply build enough schools overnight to accommodate all of the extra children?


And, by the way, I'm a liberal but certainly not a Liberal Party voter.  I'm deeply offended   :'(

Uncle Meat wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:24am:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 11:00am: Schools should be run as an essential service to the public. They should NOT be run as a business trying to extract the last cent out of the government and parents. You definitely must be a liberal voter. Yeah, I agree.  However ... ... if these private school "businesses" go broke all of a sudden (through lack of funding), where do you think all of the children will end up? How do you like the idea of 50 kids or more in public school classrooms? Or, do you think the government will simply build enough schools overnight to accommodate all of the extra children? And, by the way, I'm a liberal but certainly not a Liberal Party voter.  I'm deeply offended   :'(

with the money they have spent on private education institutions over the decades they could have built the schools they needed as well as creating plenty of jobs which is what they always go on about !!

Added a poll ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 9:25pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 9:19pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 9:12pm: bludger wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 7:10pm: My taxes pay for everyones children to be educated at a public school including rich peoples kids. Why should I cough up to help pay for rich peoples kids to be educated at a private school? >:( Because it's cheaper than building more public schools. Bullshit. No, it's a fact. The kids have to go to school somewhere. If the private schools didn't exist, more public schools would have to be built.  The cost of building and maintaining public schools is much higher than the contributions given to the private schools. No BS.  All quite simple. No it's bullshit. Schools should be run as an essential service to the public. They should NOT be run as a business trying to extract the last cent out of the government and parents. The money that has been doled out to private schools for decades could have been used to build more public schools. The idea that the more money you pay the better the education is totally absurd. All kids should have the best education irrespective of socio economic background. Just look at the Finnish school system. All publicly owned and run with the best teachers money can buy and no daggy uniforms which is just another scam to make money :( You definitely must be a liberal voter.

Almost all private schools are not-for-profit enterprises. They are supported by student fees, government subsidies, and donations, mostly from old students.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:47am:

Almost all private schools are not-for-profit enterprises. They are supported by student fees, government subsidies, and donations, mostly from old students.

Tell me you don't honestlky believe that  :-X

When did religious institutions ever get invoilved in something that was not profitable ?

Sir lastnail wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:45am:

with the money they have spent on private education institutions over the decades they could have built the schools they needed as well as creating plenty of jobs which is what they always go on about !!

True.  They could have.

However, I don't have a DeLorean with a 1.21 gigawatt flux capacitor.  Do you?

http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/images/2010/09/teachers.jpg

Uncle Meat wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 11:45am: with the money they have spent on private education institutions over the decades they could have built the schools they needed as well as creating plenty of jobs which is what they always go on about !! True.  They could have. However, I don't have a DeLorean with a 1.21 gigawatt flux capacitor.  Do you? http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/images/2010/09/teachers.jpg

so lets keep poring good money after bad just like with Holden Ford and Toyota ! To big to fail eh ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:49am:

freediver wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 11:47am: Almost all private schools are not-for-profit enterprises. They are supported by student fees, government subsidies, and donations, mostly from old students. Tell me you don't honestlky believe that  :-X When did religious institutions ever get invoilved in something that was not profitable ?

The school I went to was both a Church of England school and a private run school.
It pumped all of the funding back into the school and provided financed trips for us to go places like Switzerland, Sweden, Germany - whilst kids in the public system were lucky to get a day trip to London.

Private schools are built on funding the educations of the children - they will pay better for teachers, they will build better facilities - and hopefully you get a better set of classmates.

However I am the first to agree that the classmates are not always better.
Some of the wealthiest kids I know were also the worst behaved.

The son of a Conservative MP attempted to burn down the library once...  :-X

Uncle Meat wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 11:45am: with the money they have spent on private education institutions over the decades they could have built the schools they needed as well as creating plenty of jobs which is what they always go on about !! True.  They could have. However, I don't have a DeLorean with a 1.21 gigawatt flux capacitor.  Do you? http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/images/2010/09/teachers.jpg

Hard to argue against the coulda, shoulda, woulda defence.

But you have done so very well. Kudos (you bloody righty lol) ;)

Is it just me, or are the opponents of private schools only capable of ideological and semantic arguments and totally incapable of considering even the most basic cost benefit analysis?

Do the people who support tax payers paying for private education at least think they should get an equal or lesser amount then the public schools?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:08am:

If you run a private-public education system, it should be two tier. That's the whole of market economics - you pay for something, you get it better. So the Government if it wishes to fund education should fund each pupil the same amount. Then the amount you pay in private education is the difference. It's equality - you pay everyone the same. I don't see why tax dollars should go to one set of people and not the other. How is that fair? Let's give everyone the same go in life.

Not sure what you're saying here, Andrei. You think private schools should be subsidised to be better than state schools (they pay, so they should get it better), but you think everyone should get the same go in life.

Either we subsidise a two-tiered system (choice), or we subidise the same go in life (socialism).

Which one is market economics?

It's not really a matter of whether we should pay for private schools, rather that the government has to please both the rich and the poor. It's all about buying votes, that's why we have so much wealthfare, not needed but it buys votes. Has anyone noticed that?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 1:02pm:

Is it just me, or are the opponents of private schools only capable of ideological and semantic arguments and totally incapable of considering even the most basic cost benefit analysis?

I think this subject basically just highlights the politics of envy.

Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 1:50pm:

Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB

If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school.
It's only fair.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair.

How is it fair to fund private enterprise?

SOB

SOB bases his entire argument on the definition of private, rather than on what is the most sensible way to fund our children's education.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 12:26pm:

However I am the first to agree that the classmates are not always better. Some of the wealthiest kids I know were also the worst behaved. The son of a Conservative MP attempted to burn down the library once...  :-X

I'd love to hear more of these stories. I'd love to know why wealthy kids can be so bad. ;D

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

SOB bases his entire argument on the definition of private, rather than on what is the most sensible way to fund our children's education.

The most sensible way is to just have public schools and no private schools and fund the public schools properly and educate the kids. Why are private schools even needed if the curriculum is the same anyway?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:09pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair. How is it fair to fund private enterprise? SOB

They're taking pressure off the public system.

Quote:

Should taxpayer pay for private education?

The parents of private school kids pay taxes and therefore their kids are ENTITLED to the same Govt education dollar as the kids of the down trodden whose parents pay little or no tax.

They actually ONLY get roughly 30c / Govt $ with private fees making up the rest.

The parents of private school kids accept this INEQUALITY because firstly they want their kids to get educated instead of indoctrinated.

Secondly, because they happen to be the minority that pays the majority of tax and its the majority that pays the minority of tax that are represented in Parliament and therefore rule the roost they have to accept this blatant ripping off of their hard earned by the 'down trodden'.

Thirdly, Private education saves the Govt BILLIONS of dollars from the public purse.  If the parents of private school kids suddenly decided to transfer their kids to the Public system the Govt would have to find these BILLIONS of dollars EVERY year.....and as Swan is finding out that is bleeding difficult to do.

The opportunity cost of not subsidising private education would be cuts to lots of other pork barrelling schemes, infrastructure projects etc etc.

Maybe they'd have to cut your dole as well
.... :D

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 2:44pm:

freediver wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:14pm: SOB bases his entire argument on the definition of private, rather than on what is the most sensible way to fund our children's education. The most sensible way is to just have public schools and no private schools and fund the public schools properly and educate the kids. Why are private schools even needed if the curriculum is the same anyway? SOB

Why is it more sensible? Do you understand that if you close private schools, there will be less money available per student in public schools? How is increasing the burden on public schools going to get you any closer to your goals of funding them properly?

Have you changed more mind about insisting it must be done your way to satisfy the definition of private?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 1:50pm:

Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB

Well, the government involves itself by prescribing the curriculum, for starters.

Secondly, many public schools are forced to spend a disproportionate amount time and energy on the children of the dregs of society who lower the standards inexorably. Public schools have no way of dealing with them. In a private school, paretnts would not tolerate the hijacking of their children's education by a bunch of Jonah Takaluahs.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b789s7TEuUE


Thirdly, it's not in the government's gift to ban parents from spending additional money on their children.

Finally, as others have pointed out, everyone pays taxes. The fairest thing would be for the government to allow parents to send their childen to any school, carrying the government funding per pupil with them. After all, it is the government that has made education compulsory, as well as the paying of taxes.

Quote:

Secondly, many public schools are forced to spend a disproportionate amount time and energy on the children of the dregs of society who lower the standards inexorably. Public schools have no way of dealing with them. In a private school, paretnts would not tolerate the hijacking of their children's education by a bunch of Jonah Takaluahs.

You really are a toad, Enid.

Quote:

The parents of private school kids pay taxes and therefore their kids are ENTITLED to the same Govt education dollar as the kids of the down trodden whose parents pay little or no tax.

So you are. They can go to public schools then.


Quote:

The parents of private school kids accept this INEQUALITY because firstly they want their kids to get educated instead of indoctrinated.

Can you clarify that please? What is the difference in the curriculum that makes 1 indoctrination and the other education?


Quote:

Maybe they'd have to cut your dole as well

I am not on the dole


Quote:

children of the dregs of society who lower the standards inexorably.

This would be who? If you are born into a poor family you are forever tainted as "dregs"?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 3:31pm:

This would be who? If you are born into a poor family you are forever tainted as "dregs"? SOB

Nope, my father was born into a place where (in his words) "we didn't even have a bucket to p*ss in".

He rose out of all of that.

It's about what you make for yourself.

Children should be funded the same by the Government, that's how it is.

SOB you seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room here. If you want 'proper' funding for the public school system, how does it help if your very first move significantly reduces the funding per student?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 3:48pm:

SOB you seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room here. If you want 'proper' funding for the public school system, how does it help if your very first move significantly reduces the funding per student?

I am not ignoring elephants unless you are an elephant.

SOB

Uncle Meat wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 2:55pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:14pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:09pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair. How is it fair to fund private enterprise? SOB They're taking pressure off the public system.

why do they need to take pressure off the public system ?

The public system is a service provided by the government which is funded by tax payers.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 3:51pm:

freediver wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 3:48pm: SOB you seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room here. If you want 'proper' funding for the public school system, how does it help if your very first move significantly reduces the funding per student? I am not ignoring elephants unless you are an elephant. SOB

Are you considering the practical aspects of this issue, or are you approaching it from a purely ideological perspective?

Soren wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB Well, the government involves itself by prescribing the curriculum, for starters. Secondly, many public schools are forced to spend a disproportionate amount time and energy on the children of the dregs of society who lower the standards inexorably. Public schools have no way of dealing with them. In a private school, paretnts would not tolerate the hijacking of their children's education by a bunch of Jonah Takaluahs.

If you educated them properly they wouldn't be the dregs of society !!

The problem starts with rubbish child care centers which are run by opportunists and only focus on play based learning where children learn absolutely nothing and are ill prepared for later on !!

The trouble with our education system is that it has been infiltrated by money making opportunists which are only in it to make a quick buck !!

Quote:

The problem starts with rubbish child care centers which are run by opportunists and only focus on play based learning where children learn absolutely nothing and are ill prepared for later on !!

Do you want kids in child care to be sitting at a desk learning things the hard way?

Should you need a piece of paper showing you are qualified to enter pre school?

Sir lastnail wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 4:23pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:55pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:14pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:09pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair. How is it fair to fund private enterprise? SOB They're taking pressure off the public system. why do they need to take pressure off the public system ?

Places in public schools are limited.

Close the private schools and all of a sudden you'll have 50 students per class in the public schools.

That's an awful lot of pressure.

They don't 'need' to do anything. But it would make sense to save money on education. With fewer public school students, the money that is spent there goes a lot further. That is true regardless of how much the amount is.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair.

Sounds like the politics of envy to me.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair.

Sounds like the politics of envy to me.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 4:37pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 4:23pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:55pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:14pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:09pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair. How is it fair to fund private enterprise? SOB They're taking pressure off the public system. why do they need to take pressure off the public system ? Places in public schools are limited. Close the private schools and all of a sudden you'll have 50 students per class in the public schools. That's an awful lot of pressure.

Wrong .... put all the money in private schools into public schools, and you've suddenly got hundreds of new schools fully funded...besides, there will always be a private school element ... do you think the likes of Packer would send his kids to a public school? not a hope , he and his billionaire buddies would fund their own school just to make sure  their kids didn't catch anything from the public school students, and do you think the catholic schools would just shut shop? not a hope, they can't miss out on the opportunity to brainwash and molest all those kids ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuPQo2DeFyQ

Johnsmith wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:14pm:

Not ... not a single red cent of tax payer money should go to private schools .... except for when the kids doorknock parliament selling chocolates as part of school fundraising, in that case I'll make an exception

Just as long as private school working parents are entitled to demand that THEIR taxes dont go to NON-WORKING people. The same argument applies.

your argument is beyond lame.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 1:02pm:

Is it just me, or are the opponents of private schools only capable of ideological and semantic arguments and totally incapable of considering even the most basic cost benefit analysis?

you just discovered that? the ONLY argument is ideological. the undisputed fact that private schools SAVE govt money never enters the equation.

longweekend58 wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

Johnsmith wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:14pm: Not ... not a single red cent of tax payer money should go to private schools .... except for when the kids doorknock parliament selling chocolates as part of school fundraising, in that case I'll make an exception Just as long as private school working parents are entitled to demand that THEIR taxes dont go to NON-WORKING people. The same argument applies. your argument is beyond lame.

If rich ppl want to get the educational benefits of taxes then they can send thier kids to public schools. Thats fair.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 2:44pm:

freediver wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:14pm: SOB bases his entire argument on the definition of private, rather than on what is the most sensible way to fund our children's education. The most sensible way is to just have public schools and no private schools and fund the public schools properly and educate the kids. Why are private schools even needed if the curriculum is the same anyway? SOB

you dont know??? 'quality' of education never passed your mind? extra-curricular studies never appeared on your horizon?

Sir lastnail wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 4:23pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:55pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:14pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:09pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair. How is it fair to fund private enterprise? SOB They're taking pressure off the public system. why do they need to take pressure off the public system ? The public system is a service provided by the government which is funded by tax payers.

you are aware of the 'pressure' on the public school system?

Quote:

Wrong .... put all the money in private schools into public schools, and you've suddenly got hundreds of new schools fully funded..

Unfortunately it's not enough to cover all the extra students from the now closed private schools.

You haven't exactly thought this through, have you?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 7:44pm:

Quote: Wrong .... put all the money in private schools into public schools, and you've suddenly got hundreds of new schools fully funded.. Unfortunately it's not enough to cover all the extra students from the now closed private schools. You haven't exactly thought this through, have you?

since when was the argument every thought out? it is NEVER anything more than a very narrow an inconsistent idiological position which seeks to force evryone to the same level, but never a higher level - only a low level.

longweekend58 wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

Johnsmith wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:14pm: Not ... not a single red cent of tax payer money should go to private schools .... except for when the kids doorknock parliament selling chocolates as part of school fundraising, in that case I'll make an exception Just as long as private school working parents are entitled to demand that THEIR taxes dont go to NON-WORKING people. The same argument applies. your argument is beyond lame.

your an idiot. ... it's not about parents rights to claim anything... once you pay your taxes you've no real say in where it is spent ... it's about public money being used for private enterprise ... do the schools give back the government money after they work out their profits?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 7:44pm:

Quote: Wrong .... put all the money in private schools into public schools, and you've suddenly got hundreds of new schools fully funded.. Unfortunately it's not enough to cover all the extra students from the now closed private schools. You haven't exactly thought this through, have you?

Have you?

Johnsmith wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 8:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 7:29pm: Johnsmith wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:14pm: Not ... not a single red cent of tax payer money should go to private schools .... except for when the kids doorknock parliament selling chocolates as part of school fundraising, in that case I'll make an exception Just as long as private school working parents are entitled to demand that THEIR taxes dont go to NON-WORKING people. The same argument applies. your argument is beyond lame. your an idiot. ... it's not about parents rights to claim anything... once you pay your taxes you've no real say in where it is spent ... it's about public money being used for private enterprise ... do the schools give back the government money after they work out their profits?

LOL... you think government money doesnt go to private enterprise? most of the public transport companies are privately owned.

your argument is nothing more than the poltiics of envy. private schools SAVE money by giving the govt a 30% discount on education by providing it cheaper. if in fact there were a proper economic argument made then PUBLIC schools should be banned because private school use 30% less govt money while giving a superior educational outcome.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair.

Sounds like the politics of envy to me, Andrei.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 4:32pm:

Soren wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 3:18pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB Well, the government involves itself by prescribing the curriculum, for starters. Secondly, many public schools are forced to spend a disproportionate amount time and energy on the children of the dregs of society who lower the standards inexorably. Public schools have no way of dealing with them. In a private school, paretnts would not tolerate the hijacking of their children's education by a bunch of Jonah Takaluahs. If you educated them properly they wouldn't be the dregs of society !! The problem starts with rubbish child care centers which are run by opportunists and only focus on play based learning where children learn absolutely nothing and are ill prepared for later on !! The trouble with our education system is that it has been infiltrated by money making opportunists which are only in it to make a quick buck !!

They resist education. That's their defining characteristic. And nobody is game enough to shame their parents - it is telling, BTW, that you would think that education is entirely up to people other than the parent. Typical thoughtless statist reflex.

Soren wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 9:58pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 4:32pm: Soren wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 3:18pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB Well, the government involves itself by prescribing the curriculum, for starters. Secondly, many public schools are forced to spend a disproportionate amount time and energy on the children of the dregs of society who lower the standards inexorably. Public schools have no way of dealing with them. In a private school, paretnts would not tolerate the hijacking of their children's education by a bunch of Jonah Takaluahs. If you educated them properly they wouldn't be the dregs of society !! The problem starts with rubbish child care centers which are run by opportunists and only focus on play based learning where children learn absolutely nothing and are ill prepared for later on !! The trouble with our education system is that it has been infiltrated by money making opportunists which are only in it to make a quick buck !! They resist education. That's their defining characteristic. And nobody is game enough to shame their parents - it is telling, BTW, that you would think that education is entirely up to people other than the parent. Typical thoughtless statist reflex.

what rubbish.

80% of the development of an infants brain occurs within the first 3 years. What does the education system do to maximize that opportunity ?? It does f.ckall and encourages scammers to run child care centers with a play based system which is a wasted opportunity :(

Typical f.cken rubbish !!

Sir lastnail wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 10:39pm:

Soren wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 9:58pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 4:32pm: Soren wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 3:18pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB Well, the government involves itself by prescribing the curriculum, for starters. Secondly, many public schools are forced to spend a disproportionate amount time and energy on the children of the dregs of society who lower the standards inexorably. Public schools have no way of dealing with them. In a private school, paretnts would not tolerate the hijacking of their children's education by a bunch of Jonah Takaluahs. If you educated them properly they wouldn't be the dregs of society !! The problem starts with rubbish child care centers which are run by opportunists and only focus on play based learning where children learn absolutely nothing and are ill prepared for later on !! The trouble with our education system is that it has been infiltrated by money making opportunists which are only in it to make a quick buck !! They resist education. That's their defining characteristic. And nobody is game enough to shame their parents - it is telling, BTW, that you would think that education is entirely up to people other than the parent. Typical thoughtless statist reflex. what rubbish. 80% of the development of an infants brain occurs within the first 3 years. What does the education system do to maximize that opportunity ?? It does f.ckall and encourages scammers to run child care centers with a play based system which is a wasted opportunity :( Typical f.cken rubbish !!

and toenail demonstrates yet another area on which he is a total loser. PLAY is the primary development tool for infants and toddlers. Kids who play a lot grow up better adjusted and more intelligent. obviously your mother left you tied up.

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 10:39pm: Soren wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 9:58pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 4:32pm: Soren wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 3:18pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB Well, the government involves itself by prescribing the curriculum, for starters. Secondly, many public schools are forced to spend a disproportionate amount time and energy on the children of the dregs of society who lower the standards inexorably. Public schools have no way of dealing with them. In a private school, paretnts would not tolerate the hijacking of their children's education by a bunch of Jonah Takaluahs. If you educated them properly they wouldn't be the dregs of society !! The problem starts with rubbish child care centers which are run by opportunists and only focus on play based learning where children learn absolutely nothing and are ill prepared for later on !! The trouble with our education system is that it has been infiltrated by money making opportunists which are only in it to make a quick buck !! They resist education. That's their defining characteristic. And nobody is game enough to shame their parents - it is telling, BTW, that you would think that education is entirely up to people other than the parent. Typical thoughtless statist reflex. what rubbish. 80% of the development of an infants brain occurs within the first 3 years. What does the education system do to maximize that opportunity ?? It does f.ckall and encourages scammers to run child care centers with a play based system which is a wasted opportunity :( Typical f.cken rubbish !! and toenail demonstrates yet another area on which he is a total loser. PLAY is the primary development tool for infants and toddlers. Kids who play a lot grow up better adjusted and more intelligent. obviously your mother left you tied up.

No telling kids they will be tortured for eternity in hell is the primary development tool

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 8:36pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:09pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair. Sounds like the politics of envy to me, Andrei.

I can't speak from the perspective of someone who went to a Government school because I didn't but for my mind a lot of the rhetoric from those who did seems they carry a chip on the shoulder the size of a elephant about private v public education.

It's a case of "I couldn't go to private school so I will hate anything about them because its not fair..."

All I am saying is that the Government should fund all schools equally and then the private schools get the additional funding from fees as well.

That's the whole point of the fees.
To ensure your child has a better education than the public school kids - otherwise whats the point in paying?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 10:27am:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 8:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:09pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair. Sounds like the politics of envy to me, Andrei. I can't speak from the perspective of someone who went to a Government school because I didn't but for my mind a lot of the rhetoric from those who did seems they carry a chip on the shoulder the size of a elephant about private v public education. It's a case of "I couldn't go to private school so I will hate anything about them because its not fair..." All I am saying is that the Government should fund all schools equally and then the private schools get the additional funding from fees as well. That's the whole point of the fees. To ensure your child has a better education than the public school kids - otherwise whats the point in paying?

If ppl want to go to public funded schools and have an "equal share" of the education funding they can go to public schools. Nobody is stopping them.]

Private schools are private enterprises and shouldn't be funded by the govt. Thats why they are called "private".

SOB

No.
It's about running a two tier system.

I pay taxes.
My children should therefore receive the same level of funding as any other child.

In addition to that I am free to spend money on school fees to ensure they get additional quality of schooling again to give them a headstart on those who don't pay.

I have no doubt my exam results are a damn sight better than kids in my district who didn't go to private school purely because my school was better.

That's what its all about.
Gaining advantage.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 10:34am:

No. It's about running a two tier system. I pay taxes. My children should therefore receive the same level of funding as any other child. In addition to that I am free to spend money on school fees to ensure they get additional quality of schooling again to give them a headstart on those who don't pay. I have no doubt my exam results are a damn sight better than kids in my district who didn't go to private school purely because my school was better. That's what its all about. Gaining advantage.

Your children do receive the same level of funding as any other child. They are free to go to public schools to take full advantage of that.

You arent entitled to more than everyone else though. You gain your "advantage" through your own privately funded means.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 10:32am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 10:27am: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 8:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:09pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair. Sounds like the politics of envy to me, Andrei. I can't speak from the perspective of someone who went to a Government school because I didn't but for my mind a lot of the rhetoric from those who did seems they carry a chip on the shoulder the size of a elephant about private v public education. It's a case of "I couldn't go to private school so I will hate anything about them because its not fair..." All I am saying is that the Government should fund all schools equally and then the private schools get the additional funding from fees as well. That's the whole point of the fees. To ensure your child has a better education than the public school kids - otherwise whats the point in paying? If ppl want to go to public funded schools and have an "equal share" of the education funding they can go to public schools. Nobody is stopping them.] Private schools are private enterprises and shouldn't be funded by the govt. Thats why they are called "private". SOB

but your belief will end up costing the govt MORE while reducing education al outcomes. How is that clever or wise? and they arent 'private enterprise' tey are non-profits and the difference is significant not the least being that NO ONE makes any money out of it.

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 10:32am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 10:27am: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 8:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:09pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair. Sounds like the politics of envy to me, Andrei. I can't speak from the perspective of someone who went to a Government school because I didn't but for my mind a lot of the rhetoric from those who did seems they carry a chip on the shoulder the size of a elephant about private v public education. It's a case of "I couldn't go to private school so I will hate anything about them because its not fair..." All I am saying is that the Government should fund all schools equally and then the private schools get the additional funding from fees as well. That's the whole point of the fees. To ensure your child has a better education than the public school kids - otherwise whats the point in paying? If ppl want to go to public funded schools and have an "equal share" of the education funding they can go to public schools. Nobody is stopping them.] Private schools are private enterprises and shouldn't be funded by the govt. Thats why they are called "private". SOB but your belief will end up costing the govt MORE while reducing education al outcomes. How is that clever or wise? and they arent 'private enterprise' tey are non-profits and the difference is significant not the least being that NO ONE makes any money out of it.

Who cares how much it costs to do it right? Its not like we are broke or anything. Think of the children.

Is your belief that religious schools are better based on fact or just prejudice?

SOB

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 10:34am:

No. It's about running a two tier system. I pay taxes. My children should therefore receive the same level of funding as any other child. In addition to that I am free to spend money on school fees to ensure they get additional quality of schooling again to give them a headstart on those who don't pay. I have no doubt my exam results are a damn sight better than kids in my district who didn't go to private school purely because my school was better. That's what its all about. Gaining advantage.

Look at the publicly funded Finnish education system. It runs rings around your best elitist private schools ! How come ?

You fail to understand that education is a right not a privilege. Your idea of education is that people who can't afford it will be left behind and the social system will then pick up the tab. In the end we pay more for an elitist education system where the user pays.

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 10:32am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 10:27am: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 8:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:09pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair. Sounds like the politics of envy to me, Andrei. I can't speak from the perspective of someone who went to a Government school because I didn't but for my mind a lot of the rhetoric from those who did seems they carry a chip on the shoulder the size of a elephant about private v public education. It's a case of "I couldn't go to private school so I will hate anything about them because its not fair..." All I am saying is that the Government should fund all schools equally and then the private schools get the additional funding from fees as well. That's the whole point of the fees. To ensure your child has a better education than the public school kids - otherwise whats the point in paying? If ppl want to go to public funded schools and have an "equal share" of the education funding they can go to public schools. Nobody is stopping them.] Private schools are private enterprises and shouldn't be funded by the govt. Thats why they are called "private". SOB but your belief will end up costing the govt MORE while reducing education al outcomes. How is that clever or wise? and they arent 'private enterprise' tey are non-profits and the difference is significant not the least being that NO ONE makes any money out of it.

They believe it in Finland and the results speak for themselves.

I assume the teachers get paid in those private schools do they ?? Non profit !! Do you really believe that sh.t ??

Church institutions don't get involved in anything unless they can make a buck out of it.

Looks like SOB has given up on rational argument again and is back to arguing that government policy on education funding should be dictated by the definition of the terms public and private, rather than what is in the best interests of our children.

Trying to sit 3 year olds in a chair all day to learn to read and write is a really bad idea. There is more to education than learning to spell. It has been fairly clearly demonstrated that these 'early intervention' efforts give a limited academic benefit in the first year or so of primary school but disappears soon after. You basically break the child's spirit for no real academic benefit and potential significant harm to the child's physical and social development.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:30pm:

Looks like SOB has given up on rational argument again and is back to arguing that government policy on education funding should be dictated by the definition of the terms public and private, rather than what is in the best interests of our children.

What is your obsession with me? There are plenty of others in this thread that also disagree with your opinions. Wait a minute. Where was I even talking to you? Is it right for an admin to use so many socks? Is this forum just you?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 12:17pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 10:32am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 10:27am: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 8:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:09pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair. Sounds like the politics of envy to me, Andrei. I can't speak from the perspective of someone who went to a Government school because I didn't but for my mind a lot of the rhetoric from those who did seems they carry a chip on the shoulder the size of a elephant about private v public education. It's a case of "I couldn't go to private school so I will hate anything about them because its not fair..." All I am saying is that the Government should fund all schools equally and then the private schools get the additional funding from fees as well. That's the whole point of the fees. To ensure your child has a better education than the public school kids - otherwise whats the point in paying? If ppl want to go to public funded schools and have an "equal share" of the education funding they can go to public schools. Nobody is stopping them.] Private schools are private enterprises and shouldn't be funded by the govt. Thats why they are called "private". SOB but your belief will end up costing the govt MORE while reducing education al outcomes. How is that clever or wise? and they arent 'private enterprise' tey are non-profits and the difference is significant not the least being that NO ONE makes any money out of it. Who cares how much it costs to do it right? Its not like we are broke or anything. Think of the children. Is your belief that religious schools are better based on fact or just prejudice? SOB

your ideology-at-all-costs bent is showing. how is it 'doing it right' to pay a lot more to get a worse outcome?

but good to see you bring out that rather lame question as to outcomes. 2/3 university graduates are private schooled.  the most successful business and community leaders are private school educated. and on and on it goes.

Gillard and Swan went to public schools.

QED

You keep trying to steer this argument back to rediculous politics of envy BS. Do you really expect people to argue with you ab out the definition of private education as if it matters to how we should educate our chilkdren most effectively? How does 'private means private' even approach a rational argument. It's like you want to avoid yourself or other people discussing the reality of the situation at all costs.

Education costs money. Private education saves the government money. This means a better education for everyone. Understand?

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 12:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 12:17pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 10:32am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 10:27am: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 8:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 2:09pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 1:50pm: Private schools are private schools. Privately owned and privately run. In a capitalist society why should the govt be involved @ all? SOB If you are going to fund education you give the same amount per pupil irrelevant of the type of school. It's only fair. Sounds like the politics of envy to me, Andrei. I can't speak from the perspective of someone who went to a Government school because I didn't but for my mind a lot of the rhetoric from those who did seems they carry a chip on the shoulder the size of a elephant about private v public education. It's a case of "I couldn't go to private school so I will hate anything about them because its not fair..." All I am saying is that the Government should fund all schools equally and then the private schools get the additional funding from fees as well. That's the whole point of the fees. To ensure your child has a better education than the public school kids - otherwise whats the point in paying? If ppl want to go to public funded schools and have an "equal share" of the education funding they can go to public schools. Nobody is stopping them.] Private schools are private enterprises and shouldn't be funded by the govt. Thats why they are called "private". SOB but your belief will end up costing the govt MORE while reducing education al outcomes. How is that clever or wise? and they arent 'private enterprise' tey are non-profits and the difference is significant not the least being that NO ONE makes any money out of it. Who cares how much it costs to do it right? Its not like we are broke or anything. Think of the children. Is your belief that religious schools are better based on fact or just prejudice? SOB your ideology-at-all-costs bent is showing. how is it 'doing it right' to pay a lot more to get a worse outcome? but good to see you bring out that rather lame question as to outcomes. 2/3 university graduates are private schooled.  the most successful business and community leaders are private school educated. and on and on it goes. Gillard and Swan went to public schools. QED

Gillard isnt stupid. Look where she is.

Religious schools teach religion. That is not useful education imo. If you want to pay extra to have your child educated with extra religion thats your choice.

I dont know what ideology you are talking about. Public schools educate children just fine.

Since you keep mentioning "beliefs" and "ideologies" i take it you are trying to troll me and piss me off by implying I am religious now? Are you freediver again?

SOB

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:37pm:

You keep trying to steer this argument back to rediculous politics of envy BS. Do you really expect people to argue with you ab out the definition of private education as if it matters to how we should educate our chilkdren most effectively? How does 'private means private' even approach a rational argument. It's like you want to avoid yourself or other people discussing the reality of the situation at all costs. Education costs money. Private education saves the government money. This means a better education for everyone. Understand?

How does saving money mean better education?

And my argument was with somebody that said they were entitled to collect public education benefits while going private. My suggestion was to go to a public school.

SOB

Well as I pay for private kids to go to private schools
The rich can pay the same amount to send mine there.

Get rid of private schools completely is my feeling. I am not interested is sponsoring breeding grounds for elitism.

One equitable standard of education nationwide.

By the same token bring back child labour for the urchin trouble makers and bullies. If they don't want to be educated fine, but they will discover that being a burden to the system is not an option either.


Quote:

Art thou one ENTITLED to escape from a yoke? Many a one hath cast away his final worth when he hath cast away his servitude.

Friedrich Nietzsche

The access to an equitable education is a Right that was hard fought for by the common man but it is also a responsibility to nurture it and respect it as the greatest tool to true Liberty. Not to be elitist for the rich and not to be hijacked by the oxygen thieves.

The rich should get a tax rebate for not sending their kids to a public school.

However the private schools should not get any Govt. help.

That's a fairer system.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:30pm:

Looks like SOB has given up on rational argument again and is back to arguing that government policy on education funding should be dictated by the definition of the terms public and private, rather than what is in the best interests of our children. Trying to sit 3 year olds in a chair all day to learn to read and write is a really bad idea. There is more to education than learning to spell. It has been fairly clearly demonstrated that these 'early intervention' efforts give a limited academic benefit in the first year or so of primary school but disappears soon after. You basically break the child's spirit for no real academic benefit and potential significant harm to the child's physical and social development.

That is absolute bullshit.

Dr Maria Montessori would totally disagree with you.


Quote:

Neuroscientist explains how to stimulate young brains EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: Educational engagement with children in those first years pays off according to one of the world's leading neurologists, Dr Judy Willis. Dr Willis is a scientist and former teacher who has written six books about applying the mind, the brain and educational research in the classroom. Dr Willis joined us from Santa Barbara.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3482571.htm

locutius wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Get rid of private schools completely is my feeling. I am not interested is sponsoring breeding grounds for elitism. One equitable standard of education nationwide. By the same token bring back child labour for the urchin trouble makers and bullies. If they don't want to be educated fine, but they will discover that being a burden to the system is not an option either. Quote: Art thou one ENTITLED to escape from a yoke? Many a one hath cast away his final worth when he hath cast away his servitude. Friedrich Nietzsche The access to an equitable education is a Right that was hard fought for by the common man but it is also a responsibility to nurture it and respect it as the greatest tool to true Liberty. Not to be elitist for the rich and not to be hijacked by the oxygen thieves.

Who are the oxygen thieves?

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

your ideology-at-all-costs bent is showing. how is it 'doing it right' to pay a lot more to get a worse outcome? but good to see you bring out that rather lame question as to outcomes. 2/3 university graduates are private schooled.  the most successful business and community leaders are private school educated. and on and on it goes. Gillard and Swan went to public schools. QED

so the 1/3 that are public school educated are failures are they ??

and yet the publicly run Finnish education system runs rings around the elitist private rubbish you keep promoting !!

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 4:23pm:

locutius wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 2:05pm: Get rid of private schools completely is my feeling. I am not interested is sponsoring breeding grounds for elitism. One equitable standard of education nationwide. By the same token bring back child labour for the urchin trouble makers and bullies. If they don't want to be educated fine, but they will discover that being a burden to the system is not an option either. Quote: Art thou one ENTITLED to escape from a yoke? Many a one hath cast away his final worth when he hath cast away his servitude. Friedrich Nietzsche The access to an equitable education is a Right that was hard fought for by the common man but it is also a responsibility to nurture it and respect it as the greatest tool to true Liberty. Not to be elitist for the rich and not to be hijacked by the oxygen thieves. Who are the oxygen thieves? SOB

The seat wasters that use up resources. Speak to almost and teacher and you'll find them in despair for the kids that want to learn but 70% of the teachers' energy is taken up by 10% of the trash.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:42pm:

How does saving money mean better education?

Because it means that we get more value for the amount we spend. It means that both public and private school students get a better education out of the amount of money spent by the government. This is true regardless of how much money the government actually spends. It is illogical to link the public/private debate with the broader debate on how much should be spent on education.


Quote:

The access to an equitable education is a Right that was hard fought for by the common man but it is also a responsibility to nurture it and respect it as the greatest tool to true Liberty. Not to be elitist for the rich and not to be hijacked by the oxygen thieves.

Subsidised private education does not bar students from access to an equitable education. It enables it. You would have all students have a worse education just so it is fair because they are all the same. It's no different to arguing that communism is better because everyone is equally poor.


Quote:

The rich should get a tax rebate for not sending their kids to a public school. However the private schools should not get any Govt. help. That's a fairer system.

Just like the current one, except more paperwork.


Quote:

Dr Maria Montessori would totally disagree with you.

Has she actually tested her theory rigorously? Do you realise she has an enourmous financial interest in promoting her stance? Plenty of scientists have actually checked the results, and found her to be wrong.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 8:18pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 12:42pm: How does saving money mean better education? Because it means that we get more value for the amount we spend. It means that both public and private school students get a better education out of the amount of money spent by the government. This is true regardless of how much money the government actually spends. It is illogical to link the public/private debate with the broader debate on how much should be spent on education.

Private education system is mainly practised in english speaking countries, compared to other European countries.
I cannot speak for Asian countries, because I do not know their system.
What the private system supports is elitism, because often job applicants from public school system have little chance to get jobs in higher paid jobs.
My own children, who were both educated in the public system can vouch for that, yet now they are using the private system to educate their own children, to give them a better chance in life, yet at considerable cost and effort.
The irony of all this is, that the students in the European countries with little or no private school systems perform as well or better than students from the dual system.

hawil wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 8:29pm:

freediver wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 8:18pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 12:42pm: How does saving money mean better education? Because it means that we get more value for the amount we spend. It means that both public and private school students get a better education out of the amount of money spent by the government. This is true regardless of how much money the government actually spends. It is illogical to link the public/private debate with the broader debate on how much should be spent on education. Private education system is mainly practised in english speaking countries, compared to other European countries. I cannot speak for Asian countries, because I do not know their system. What the private system supports is elitism, because often job applicants from public school system have little chance to get jobs in higher paid jobs. My own children, who were both educated in the public system can vouch for that, yet now they are using the private system to educate their own children, to give them a better chance in life, yet at considerable cost and effort. The irony of all this is, that the students in the European countries with little or no private school systems perform as well or better than students from the dual system.

You are confusing two separate issues. The value placed on education, and the total amount spent, are separate issues to the private/public debate. Subsidised private schools improve the education for all students, regardless of the total amount spent by the government. It is effectively an extra education tax on the rich that allows the rich to put more money into both public and private education, for the benefit of all.

Basically, Aussies don't really understand what fairness is. They silently accept all kinds of unfair things, this is only one example.

Every child deserves education payment from government, both poor and rich children. So government should pay equal amount of money per head into public and private school. That's fair.

beer wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 11:02pm:

Basically, Aussies don't really understand what fairness is. They silently accept all kinds of unfair things, this is only one example. Every child deserves education payment from government, both poor and rich children. So government should pay equal amount of money per head into public and private school. That's fair.

how is it fair when the scammers who run private schools have already collected money from their customers ??

why do they need more money from the government ??

sounds like an inequitable situation to me.

private should mean private and not being topped up by the government :(

Sir lastnail wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

beer wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:02pm: Basically, Aussies don't really understand what fairness is. They silently accept all kinds of unfair things, this is only one example. Every child deserves education payment from government, both poor and rich children. So government should pay equal amount of money per head into public and private school. That's fair. how is it fair when the scammers who run private schools have already collected money from their customers ?? why do they need more money from the government ?? sounds like an inequitable situation to me. private should mean private and not being topped up by the government :(

That's because you haven't deeply think about this issue.

1. Should you allow somebody be HIGHER class than others in this country? If people should have equal right, especially for innocent children. They should be treated very equally by the society include government. In this case, children should receive their benefit regardless of their backgrounds. That's how you teach them and grow them in right way.

2. Government shouldn't be granted too much power to decide how to spend money, especially how to distribute money in different channels. Their authority should be limited to stop politicians to transfer benefits to particular groups. In this two-party system, most time, only a few percent of votes, say <5% decides who wins the parliament. That's why politicians keeping send money into those 5% of minor groups and damage the interest of all others.

3. Government income from personal income has already been classified into different percentages. When they spend out money, why should they classify people again based on their backgrounds? This is double tax, double standards. Where is fairness? Without fair play, market is distorted in long run. Lazy people relays on politics framework to earn money they wouldn't be able to earn anywhere in the world. Rich or smart people move away from this country. Finally this country becomes another Greece.

Quote:

This is double tax, double standards. Where is fairness?

The well off do pay twice:
They pay tax for schools &
they pay school fees.


However the Govt. gives some of it back when it
supports private schools.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 8:18pm:

Has she actually tested her theory rigorously? Do you realise she has an enourmous financial interest in promoting her stance? Plenty of scientists have actually checked the results, and found her to be wrong.

Yes it's been tested and it works whereas your play based system is equivalent to brain damage for children !!

How do you account for Australia's poor education standards compared to other countries ??

Kids get taught play based system in childcare and when they are older guess what ? They are still playing and there are communities full of feral children still playing and not learning anything !!

The results speak for themselves. Australia is no 35 ranked in the world when it comes to education standards :(

play based is the go :) LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 11:48pm:

freediver wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 8:18pm: Has she actually tested her theory rigorously? Do you realise she has an enourmous financial interest in promoting her stance? Plenty of scientists have actually checked the results, and found her to be wrong. Yes it's been tested and it works whereas your play based system is equivalent to brain damage for children !! How do you account for Australia's poor education standards compared to other countries ?? Kids get taught play based system in childcare and when they are older guess what ? They are still playing and there are communities full of feral children still playing and not learning anything !! The results speak for themselves. Australia is no 35 ranked in the world when it comes to education standards :( play based is the go :) LOL

Agree this.

In other country, tax office gives a formula to help people to calculate their tax. Each year, they need only 1 person to adjust 1 factor there in the formula, maybe spend 1 hour.

Here, Tax office gives many examples, at which amount, how much is calculated payable. They hire 10 people to work out all the possible values and make a very long list to cover every thing. Takes weeks.

So jobs are created.

beer wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 11:02pm:

Basically, Aussies don't really understand what fairness is. They silently accept all kinds of unfair things, this is only one example. Every child deserves education payment from government, both poor and rich children. So government should pay equal amount of money per head into public and private school. That's fair.

Thats not fair. I pay tax so I want my kid in a private school. Why should i be regulated to a public school if I dont have the fees?

SOB

Sir lastnail wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

beer wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:02pm: Basically, Aussies don't really understand what fairness is. They silently accept all kinds of unfair things, this is only one example. Every child deserves education payment from government, both poor and rich children. So government should pay equal amount of money per head into public and private school. That's fair. how is it fair when the scammers who run private schools have already collected money from their customers ?? why do they need more money from the government ?? sounds like an inequitable situation to me. private should mean private and not being topped up by the government :(

It's fair because it is what is wanted by all the parties involved. What would be unfair is to deny them this choice out of envy and ignorance and make all children suffer to satisfy the definition of private.


Quote:

Yes it's been tested and it works

Don't be so naive. Anything can be shown to 'work' if you put the goal posts right in front of it and push it hard enough.


Quote:

Why should i be regulated to a public school if I dont have the fees?

The same reason you are 'regulated' to a holden or ford. Because you are poor, and because that is the standard society has set.

Do you realise that by demanding more you would actually end up with less? Just like in communism.

Quote:

The same reason you are 'regulated' to a holden or ford. Because you are poor, and because that is the standard society has set. Do you realise that by demanding more you would actually end up with less? Just like in communism.

Then its only fair that the rich cant demand more either. They cant have both. Public funding is for public schools. Communism has nothing to do with it.

SOB

Once again we are back to pure ideology and rejection of reality. Cutting funds from public schools would make all children worse off - both public and private. Why are you incapable of even acknowledging this point, let alone trying to argue against it? Do you really not care about our children's education? Do you really want to make everyone worse off to satisfy your dogma? We are ten pages into this thread and you still haven't even realised what people are telling you.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

Once again we are back to pure ideology and rejection of reality. Cutting funds from public schools would make all children worse off - both public and private. Why are you incapable of even acknowledging this point, let alone trying to argue against it? Do you really not care about our children's education? Do you really want to make everyone worse off to satisfy your dogma? We are ten pages into this thread and you still haven't even realised what people are telling you.

Not people. You. And I acknowledged it pages ago. I just disagree. You can look it up if you missed it. Why do you keep saying I say things I dont and saying I dont say things i do?

you are the one that worries about money instead of children it seems.

SOB

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 8:22am:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:10pm: beer wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:02pm: Basically, Aussies don't really understand what fairness is. They silently accept all kinds of unfair things, this is only one example. Every child deserves education payment from government, both poor and rich children. So government should pay equal amount of money per head into public and private school. That's fair. how is it fair when the scammers who run private schools have already collected money from their customers ?? why do they need more money from the government ?? sounds like an inequitable situation to me. private should mean private and not being topped up by the government :( It's fair because it is what is wanted by all the parties involved. What would be unfair is to deny them this choice out of envy and ignorance and make all children suffer to satisfy the definition of private. Quote: Yes it's been tested and it works Don't be so naive. Anything can be shown to 'work' if you put the goal posts right in front of it and push it hard enough.

Go and check out the current crop of scammers running child care centers here. There is no proper learning programs because it is played based bullshit. The kids are restless and irritable because there is nothing to grab and hold their attention. The proprietors who run these joints are in it for the money and nothing else, for the same reason scammers run private schools and hold there hand out for yet more government money  !!

Wake up will you. The system doesn't work here that is why kids have numeracy and literacy problems.

Look at the publicly run Finnish education system and stop making excuses for the scammers here !!

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 9:26am:

freediver wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 8:46am: Once again we are back to pure ideology and rejection of reality. Cutting funds from public schools would make all children worse off - both public and private. Why are you incapable of even acknowledging this point, let alone trying to argue against it? Do you really not care about our children's education? Do you really want to make everyone worse off to satisfy your dogma? We are ten pages into this thread and you still haven't even realised what people are telling you. Not people. You. And I acknowledged it pages ago. I just disagree. You can look it up if you missed it. Why do you keep saying I say things I dont and saying I dont say things i do? you are the one that worries about money instead of children it seems. SOB

Do you think that wasting money from the education budget will make the outcome worse or better for our children?

If you disagree, you are wrong. Private education saves money. The vast majority of parents could not afford it without the subsidies or would not bother because the education quality would go down. Citing one or two mega rich parents hardly captures the nature of the education market, does it?

That means that rather than subsidising the education of these children, the government would end up paying the lot if you had your way.

If you disagree, why do you shy away from debating whether or not in benefits the children? Is it because you don't actually care about the children? Surely this is the crux of the issue, rather than the definition of private. Is it true that your opposition to this is based on the religious association of private schools and your ideological opposition to religion (eg wanting it banned) rather than the interests of the children?


Quote:

Go and check out the current crop of scammers running child care centers here. There is no proper learning programs because it is played based bullshit.

Same with you. Surely it makes sense to establish whether you quaint ideas about education actually benefit children, and to seek out evidence for this from beyond the propaganda of people making huge sums of money from your alternative? Going off on a childish rant about how everyone else is scamming the children is not exactly a rational argument. It just demonstrates that you are unable to even conceive of the possibility that you are wrong, let alone try to back up your position.

All we see here from the critics of private education is politics based on envy and thoughtless ideology, and an inability to engage in rational argument to back up their positions. That is why we can go for a dozen pages and still not bring them down close enough to earth to discuss whether their ideas would actually benefit children.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 12:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 9:26am: freediver wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 8:46am: Once again we are back to pure ideology and rejection of reality. Cutting funds from public schools would make all children worse off - both public and private. Why are you incapable of even acknowledging this point, let alone trying to argue against it? Do you really not care about our children's education? Do you really want to make everyone worse off to satisfy your dogma? We are ten pages into this thread and you still haven't even realised what people are telling you. Not people. You. And I acknowledged it pages ago. I just disagree. You can look it up if you missed it. Why do you keep saying I say things I dont and saying I dont say things i do? you are the one that worries about money instead of children it seems. SOB Do you think that wasting money from the education budget will make the outcome worse or better for our children? If you disagree, you are wrong. Private education saves money. The vast majority of parents could not afford it without the subsidies or would not bother because the education quality would go down. Citing one or two mega rich parents hardly captures the nature of the education market, does it? That means that rather than subsidising the education of these children, the government would end up paying the lot if you had your way. If you disagree, why do you shy away from debating whether or not in benefits the children? Is it because you don't actually care about the children? Surely this is the crux of the issue, rather than the definition of private. Is it true that your opposition to this is based on the religious association of private schools and your ideological opposition to religion (eg wanting it banned) rather than the interests of the children? Quote: Go and check out the current crop of scammers running child care centers here. There is no proper learning programs because it is played based bullshit. Same with you. Surely it makes sense to establish whether you quaint ideas about education actually benefit children, and to seek out evidence for this from beyond the propaganda of people making huge sums of money from your alternative? Going off on a childish rant about how everyone else is scamming the children is not exactly a rational argument. It just demonstrates that you are unable to even conceive of the possibility that you are wrong, let alone try to back up your position. All we see here from the critics of private education is politics based on envy and thoughtless ideology, and an inability to engage in rational argument to back up their positions. That is why we can go for a dozen pages and still not bring them down close enough to earth to discuss whether their ideas would actually benefit children.

If i disagree with what? It was a question.

I am pretty sure I addressed your concerns about children in another post. My opposition to this is based on the fact that its public money for public kids. If richer ppl want the public money they should use the public services.

Religion is not my reason for opposing it but it is a valid point. Religion should not be taught to children imo. It doesnt teach them to think for themselves. However I dont object to private schools teaching it if they think they must as long as they teach the other stuff too. I want religion banned in PUBLIC schools.

I did put forth an idea earlier that getting rid of private schools altogether would solve the problem. It would wouldn't it. All the money would then go to public schools where they can invest more in education.

This is not about the costs (AS I SAID BEFORE) though. If it costs more to do education the right way then why not invest in our future?

you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time (wrongly mostly) trying to analyse ppl you disagree with instead of providing factual arguments. Getting ppl offside by telling them what they think is not the proper way to conduct a debate imo.

Oh one last thing. We havent seen any evidence yet that private schools are any better than public ones. Just because they cost more doesn't mean they are better.

SOB

Sir lastnail wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 11:28am:

freediver wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 8:22am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:10pm: beer wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:02pm: Basically, Aussies don't really understand what fairness is. They silently accept all kinds of unfair things, this is only one example. Every child deserves education payment from government, both poor and rich children. So government should pay equal amount of money per head into public and private school. That's fair. how is it fair when the scammers who run private schools have already collected money from their customers ?? why do they need more money from the government ?? sounds like an inequitable situation to me. private should mean private and not being topped up by the government :( It's fair because it is what is wanted by all the parties involved. What would be unfair is to deny them this choice out of envy and ignorance and make all children suffer to satisfy the definition of private. Quote: Yes it's been tested and it works Don't be so naive. Anything can be shown to 'work' if you put the goal posts right in front of it and push it hard enough. Go and check out the current crop of scammers running child care centers here. There is no proper learning programs because it is played based bullshit. The kids are restless and irritable because there is nothing to grab and hold their attention. The proprietors who run these joints are in it for the money and nothing else, for the same reason scammers run private schools and hold there hand out for yet more government money  !! Wake up will you. The system doesn't work here that is why kids have numeracy and literacy problems. Look at the publicly run Finnish education system and stop making excuses for the scammers here !!

one day it is china you love, then germany and now Finland. You are hard to take seriosly, assuming anyone does.

PLAY is the central aspect of early child development. So in otherwords life is as it always is: you are wrong.

longweekend58 wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 11:28am: freediver wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 8:22am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:10pm: beer wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:02pm: Basically, Aussies don't really understand what fairness is. They silently accept all kinds of unfair things, this is only one example. Every child deserves education payment from government, both poor and rich children. So government should pay equal amount of money per head into public and private school. That's fair. how is it fair when the scammers who run private schools have already collected money from their customers ?? why do they need more money from the government ?? sounds like an inequitable situation to me. private should mean private and not being topped up by the government :( It's fair because it is what is wanted by all the parties involved. What would be unfair is to deny them this choice out of envy and ignorance and make all children suffer to satisfy the definition of private. Quote: Yes it's been tested and it works Don't be so naive. Anything can be shown to 'work' if you put the goal posts right in front of it and push it hard enough. Go and check out the current crop of scammers running child care centers here. There is no proper learning programs because it is played based bullshit. The kids are restless and irritable because there is nothing to grab and hold their attention. The proprietors who run these joints are in it for the money and nothing else, for the same reason scammers run private schools and hold there hand out for yet more government money  !! Wake up will you. The system doesn't work here that is why kids have numeracy and literacy problems. Look at the publicly run Finnish education system and stop making excuses for the scammers here !! one day it is china you love, then germany and now Finland. You are hard to take seriosly, assuming anyone does. PLAY is the central aspect of early child development. So in otherwords life is as it always is: you are wrong.

I agree your point for PLAY. But PLAY too much and be taught to be naive forever isn't that good.

Kids shouldn't be over protected from competent and sometime crucial modern society. They should understand how difficult it would be to make a better life when they grow up.

beer wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 11:31pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 1:24pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 11:28am: freediver wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 8:22am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:10pm: beer wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:02pm: Basically, Aussies don't really understand what fairness is. They silently accept all kinds of unfair things, this is only one example. Every child deserves education payment from government, both poor and rich children. So government should pay equal amount of money per head into public and private school. That's fair. how is it fair when the scammers who run private schools have already collected money from their customers ?? why do they need more money from the government ?? sounds like an inequitable situation to me. private should mean private and not being topped up by the government :( It's fair because it is what is wanted by all the parties involved. What would be unfair is to deny them this choice out of envy and ignorance and make all children suffer to satisfy the definition of private. Quote: Yes it's been tested and it works Don't be so naive. Anything can be shown to 'work' if you put the goal posts right in front of it and push it hard enough. Go and check out the current crop of scammers running child care centers here. There is no proper learning programs because it is played based bullshit. The kids are restless and irritable because there is nothing to grab and hold their attention. The proprietors who run these joints are in it for the money and nothing else, for the same reason scammers run private schools and hold there hand out for yet more government money  !! Wake up will you. The system doesn't work here that is why kids have numeracy and literacy problems. Look at the publicly run Finnish education system and stop making excuses for the scammers here !! one day it is china you love, then germany and now Finland. You are hard to take seriosly, assuming anyone does. PLAY is the central aspect of early child development. So in otherwords life is as it always is: you are wrong. I agree your point for PLAY. But PLAY too much and be taught to be naive forever isn't that good. Kids shouldn't be over protected from competent and sometime crucial modern society. They should understand how difficult it would be to make a better life when they grow up.

Especially if you are taught to play and worship some fairy. I hope thats not what they do in daycare centers. That would be pretty bad since its almost mandatory to use the places nowadays.

SOB

If you disagree, you are wrong. Private education saves money. The vast majority of parents could not afford it without the subsidies or would not bother because the education quality would go down. Citing one or two mega rich parents hardly captures the nature of the education market, does it?

That means that rather than subsidising the education of these children, the government would end up paying the lot if you had your way.

I think your argument here is based on unsound reasoning.

If there was no government subsidisation of private schooling then either one of two choices could be made by the parents.

1) The parents would take their child out of private schooling for financial reasons and place the child in public schools.

2) The parents would leave their child in the private school because they could afford it or the child is given a scolarship from the religious  organisation that is the governing body associated with it.

I cannot see why anybody should pay taxes to subsidise another childs education in a manner that the parents would like. There is public transport and their is private transport - I wouldn't expect anybody to subsidise my transport in a private vehicle - especially if all hey could afford is public trasport. All that would do is lessen the funding pooling and further reduce the ability to provide functoning public transport. There is a definite fund savings advantage by funding less infrastructure (duplication). Having only non-secular public schooling socialises children better ie reduces the notion of elitism/racism/sexism or other discrimanotry notions that are only disseminated through religious practices. Taxes that subsidise private schooling only directly benefit the few. There is no conclusive evidence that public schooling infrastructure or services have improved over the similar period of exponential growth in private school funding ie it is more wishful thinking that the few who benefit from this favouritism has some positive benefit for the wider public. It has no redeeming features to it at all. By inculcating a doctrine of elitism through religious affiliation, we enshrine discrimination within the psyche of our children and all future generations of Ozuns.

I firmly believe that each child should recieve exactly the same token amount from the government - by way of a nominal annual grant, only redeemable by the chosen school of choice  - that is submitted to the parents choice of schooling. That way the TOTAL funding amount allocated to education for all private and public schools is simply divided by the number of school age children and the amount is calculated. That way there can be no issues of extra funding or no funding or any other criticism of how the funding pie is handed out.

It would be then down to each and every State to determine how it deals with the issue of it's funding for schools.

Whether or not there should even be private schooling is a vexacious issue. As I have indicated above I don't believe we should teach our children (under the guise of religious instruction) to think they are somehow better than the rest of the kids because they are part of the religion administrating the school.

It would be interesting to hear what the arguments are that promote the benefits of religious private schools in society. I've yet to hear any good reasons. When I hear of a good reason for private schooling I'll reconsider my opinion but the false belief that somehow it helps to take a burden off public schooling by divesting them of crucial funding, is the best spin of all.

Quote:

My opposition to this is based on the fact that its public money for public kids.

So it is a purely semantic issue with no practical concerns?


Quote:

I did put forth an idea earlier that getting rid of private schools altogether would solve the problem. It would wouldn't it. All the money would then go to public schools where they can invest more in education.

It depends how you define the problem. Your 'solution' would leave everyone worse off, because all children would end up with a lower value education. If getting a worse education for every child is your idea of a solution to some silly semantic problem, then so be it.


Quote:

This is not about the costs (AS I SAID BEFORE) though. If it costs more to do education the right way then why not invest in our future?

Ending the subsidies would make all children worse off regardless of the total amount spent on education by the government. In this sense the issue can be entirely separated from the total amount spent. The same argument would apply if we increased or decreased the education budget.


Quote:

you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time (wrongly mostly) trying to analyse ppl you disagree with instead of providing factual arguments

Wrong. I spend an inordinate amount of time repeating the same very basic argument about costs to people who seem completely oblivious to it and don't respond to it. So do several other members. We have actually been incredibly patient with you. I still cannot tell whether you are even aware of what I am saying to you. The evidence indicates you are not.

The factual arguments I have made in this post I have made at least a dozen times previously in this thread. Every single time they were ignored and instead you and others responded with some simple minded BS like 'private means private'. If you keep wasting evereyone's time like that I am going to call you on it. It should not take a dozen pages of debate to get you to respond to my very first point - the same argument made by several other people here also.


Quote:

Oh one last thing. We havent seen any evidence yet that private schools are any better than public ones. Just because they cost more doesn't mean they are better.

I do not recall anyone here basing their argument on private schools providing a higher quality education. It has always been some very basic maths about dollars per student.

Again, try reading the very simple argument we are putting to you over and over again. If you don;t understand it, say so, don't just ignore it and repeat your silly blather about private means private as a substitute for engaging in debate.


Quote:

Kids shouldn't be over protected from competent and sometime crucial modern society. They should understand how difficult it would be to make a better life when they grow up.

Sure, as a generalisation, but not when they are 3 years old.


Quote:

If there was no government subsidisation of private schooling then either one of two choices could be made by the parents.

Yes, that is correct, but you are only half way there. What do you think is the consequence of all those children moving to the public system - it means that an education that was previously only partly subsidised by the government is now completely subsidised. That means less money spent per student.

The fact is that for most parents, the costs are a serious burden and they would not use private education if they had to pay the full amount.


Quote:

I cannot see why anybody should pay taxes to subsidise another childs education in a manner that the parents would like.

I am not sure what logic you are trying to put together here, but private school parents also pay tax towards educating children. You assert that there is something wrong with all children getting something out of that, but have presented no rational argument.


Quote:

There is public transport and their is private transport - I wouldn't expect anybody to subsidise my transport in a private vehicle - especially if all hey could afford is public trasport

.

Yet that is exactly what happens. Enourmous amounts of money from the taxpayer get spent on roads that are provided for free for private use.


Quote:

There is a definite fund savings advantage by funding less infrastructure (duplication).

Private schools tend to be in areas where there are lots of schools around anyway, so there is no additional duplication of infrastructure.


Quote:

ie it is more wishful thinking that the few who benefit from this favouritism has some positive benefit for the wider public.

It is not wishful thinking. It is fact. Every student in private school means one less in a public school, which means very real cost savings. Unless you think money grows on trees then this is a real benefit.


Quote:

I firmly believe that each child should recieve exactly the same token amount from the government - by way of a nominal annual grant, only redeemable by the chosen school of choice  - that is submitted to the parents choice of schooling. That way the TOTAL funding amount allocated to education for all private and public schools is simply divided by the number of school age children and the amount is calculated.

You are contradicting yourself here Dooley. Now you are saying private schools should get more subsidies.

"I did put forth an idea earlier that getting rid of private schools altogether would solve the problem. It would wouldn't it. All the money would then go to public schools where they can invest more in education. "

Thats what i said. INVEST MORE IN EDUCATION. How does that translate in any way to giving children a worse education? Even if my grammar is wrong you know what I mean. You are the one that keeps bringing semantics into it.


Quote:

Ending the subsidies would make all children worse off regardless of the total amount spent on education by the government. In this sense the issue can be entirely separated from the total amount spent. The same argument would apply if we increased or decreased the education budget.

That doesnt make any sense to me. Basically the government can spend what is needed to fund public schools. You reckon it would cost more to get rid of funding of private schools but private schools can provide their own funding and the money can go to public schools. If we were to get rid of private schools altogether there would still be more money left over for the public schools and the government is pretty good with moving money around and they can find more money for public schools if it will make them better.

SOB

Quote:

Thats what i said. INVEST MORE IN EDUCATION. How does that translate in any way to giving children a worse education?

Have you changed your mind about ending private school subsidies? Or are you completely oblivious to the dozen or so times where I have pointed out that the two issues are entirely separable? Oh wait, the bit you quoted was actually about ending private schooling and implied no net increase in the education budget. So I guess you are still completely oblivious to the main argument about how this would result in a decrease in funding per student. It is not like this is some complicated accounting.

Lets try yet again for Borg: when those students shift to the public system, they will go from being partly subsidised to wholly subsidised. That means less money spent per student, because money has to be taken from the students that were already public to increase the new arrivals, and the new arrivals get a massive cut because the parents are not paying extra any more. That means every student gets a worse education.

As I have also pointed out, this argument does not change if the total education budget changes. They are two separate issues. Unless you think it is impossible to spend more on education without getting rid of private schools.

I'm not sure how I can spell this out any clearer for you SOB. I honestly can not understand why you are still so oblivious to what we have been saying for a dozen pages.


Quote:

but private schools can provide their own funding and the money can go to public schools

This is where reality kicks in SOB. If you cut the subsidies, most parents would send their children to public schools instead. Not just because it is a kick in the guts for them to have to pay for public schooling via taxes and pay all over again because they don't get their fair share - but also because they simply could not afford it. Most parents who send their children to private schools are regular people without a bottomless bank account who make genuine sacrifices for the better education.


Quote:

If we were to get rid of private schools altogether there would still be more money left over for the public schools

No there would not, because all those private school students would be in public schools. The total amount going to public schools may go up, but the amount per student goes down.


Quote:

and the government is pretty good with moving money around and they can find more money for public schools if it will make them better.

Like I said Borg, they can do this whether they ban private schools or not. It is a completely separate issue.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 8:18am:

beer wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:02pm: Basically, Aussies don't really understand what fairness is. They silently accept all kinds of unfair things, this is only one example. Every child deserves education payment from government, both poor and rich children. So government should pay equal amount of money per head into public and private school. That's fair. Thats not fair. I pay tax so I want my kid in a private school. Why should i be regulated to a public school if I dont have the fees? SOB

the same reason why you cant have a car if you dont have the money to buy one. There is public transport.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 1:09pm:

freediver wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 12:42pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 9:26am: freediver wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 8:46am: Once again we are back to pure ideology and rejection of reality. Cutting funds from public schools would make all children worse off - both public and private. Why are you incapable of even acknowledging this point, let alone trying to argue against it? Do you really not care about our children's education? Do you really want to make everyone worse off to satisfy your dogma? We are ten pages into this thread and you still haven't even realised what people are telling you. Not people. You. And I acknowledged it pages ago. I just disagree. You can look it up if you missed it. Why do you keep saying I say things I dont and saying I dont say things i do? you are the one that worries about money instead of children it seems. SOB Do you think that wasting money from the education budget will make the outcome worse or better for our children? If you disagree, you are wrong. Private education saves money. The vast majority of parents could not afford it without the subsidies or would not bother because the education quality would go down. Citing one or two mega rich parents hardly captures the nature of the education market, does it? That means that rather than subsidising the education of these children, the government would end up paying the lot if you had your way. If you disagree, why do you shy away from debating whether or not in benefits the children? Is it because you don't actually care about the children? Surely this is the crux of the issue, rather than the definition of private. Is it true that your opposition to this is based on the religious association of private schools and your ideological opposition to religion (eg wanting it banned) rather than the interests of the children? Quote: Go and check out the current crop of scammers running child care centers here. There is no proper learning programs because it is played based bullshit. Same with you. Surely it makes sense to establish whether you quaint ideas about education actually benefit children, and to seek out evidence for this from beyond the propaganda of people making huge sums of money from your alternative? Going off on a childish rant about how everyone else is scamming the children is not exactly a rational argument. It just demonstrates that you are unable to even conceive of the possibility that you are wrong, let alone try to back up your position. All we see here from the critics of private education is politics based on envy and thoughtless ideology, and an inability to engage in rational argument to back up their positions. That is why we can go for a dozen pages and still not bring them down close enough to earth to discuss whether their ideas would actually benefit children. If i disagree with what? It was a question. I am pretty sure I addressed your concerns about children in another post. My opposition to this is based on the fact that its public money for public kids. If richer ppl want the public money they should use the public services. Religion is not my reason for opposing it but it is a valid point. Religion should not be taught to children imo. It doesnt teach them to think for themselves. However I dont object to private schools teaching it if they think they must as long as they teach the other stuff too. I want religion banned in PUBLIC schools. I did put forth an idea earlier that getting rid of private schools altogether would solve the problem. It would wouldn't it. All the money would then go to public schools where they can invest more in education. This is not about the costs (AS I SAID BEFORE) though. If it costs more to do education the right way then why not invest in our future? you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time (wrongly mostly) trying to analyse ppl you disagree with instead of providing factual arguments. Getting ppl offside by telling them what they think is not the proper way to conduct a debate imo. Oh one last thing. We havent seen any evidence yet that private schools are any better than public ones. Just because they cost more doesn't mean they are better. SOB

you are one of those people that 'cant be taught'. all your arguments have been addressed multiple times but you seem unable to understand them, You are quite simply wrong but it seems not possible to explain why as you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the argument.

Dooley wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 11:58am:

If you disagree, you are wrong. Private education saves money. The vast majority of parents could not afford it without the subsidies or would not bother because the education quality would go down. Citing one or two mega rich parents hardly captures the nature of the education market, does it? That means that rather than subsidising the education of these children, the government would end up paying the lot if you had your way. I think your argument here is based on unsound reasoning. If there was no government subsidisation of private schooling then either one of two choices could be made by the parents. 1) The parents would take their child out of private schooling for financial reasons and place the child in public schools. 2) The parents would leave their child in the private school because they could afford it or the child is given a scolarship from the religious  organisation that is the governing body associated with it. I cannot see why anybody should pay taxes to subsidise another childs education in a manner that the parents would like. There is public transport and their is private transport - I wouldn't expect anybody to subsidise my transport in a private vehicle - especially if all hey could afford is public trasport. All that would do is lessen the funding pooling and further reduce the ability to provide functoning public transport. There is a definite fund savings advantage by funding less infrastructure (duplication). Having only non-secular public schooling socialises children better ie reduces the notion of elitism/racism/sexism or other discrimanotry notions that are only disseminated through religious practices. Taxes that subsidise private schooling only directly benefit the few. There is no conclusive evidence that public schooling infrastructure or services have improved over the similar period of exponential growth in private school funding ie it is more wishful thinking that the few who benefit from this favouritism has some positive benefit for the wider public. It has no redeeming features to it at all. By inculcating a doctrine of elitism through religious affiliation, we enshrine discrimination within the psyche of our children and all future generations of Ozuns. I firmly believe that each child should recieve exactly the same token amount from the government - by way of a nominal annual grant, only redeemable by the chosen school of choice  - that is submitted to the parents choice of schooling. That way the TOTAL funding amount allocated to education for all private and public schools is simply divided by the number of school age children and the amount is calculated. That way there can be no issues of extra funding or no funding or any other criticism of how the funding pie is handed out. It would be then down to each and every State to determine how it deals with the issue of it's funding for schools. Whether or not there should even be private schooling is a vexacious issue. As I have indicated above I don't believe we should teach our children (under the guise of religious instruction) to think they are somehow better than the rest of the kids because they are part of the religion administrating the school. It would be interesting to hear what the arguments are that promote the benefits of religious private schools in society. I've yet to hear any good reasons. When I hear of a good reason for private schooling I'll reconsider my opinion but the false belief that somehow it helps to take a burden off public schooling by divesting them of crucial funding, is the best spin of all.

one of the big failings of your argument is the rather ludicrous claim that public school parents are subsidising private school parents. Given the general economic status  that private shcool parents are the wealthier and higher earners then the opposite is true. Given that almost no tax is paid by paraents earning under $50,000pa then it is PRIVATE school parents who are subsidising public school parents, not the other way around.

Every argument against private school subsidies by the govt fails. It is NOT intrinsically unfair, rather it is unfair that public school parents are given an education despite little or no tax contribution. it is unfair because private school students get 30% LESS than public students while paying vastyl more tax. It is not unfair because to do otherwise would increase the cost to the govt while reducing educational outcomes.

EVERY argument against govt supporting private schools fails by a huge margin.

longweekend58 wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 11:28am: freediver wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 8:22am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:10pm: beer wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 11:02pm: Basically, Aussies don't really understand what fairness is. They silently accept all kinds of unfair things, this is only one example. Every child deserves education payment from government, both poor and rich children. So government should pay equal amount of money per head into public and private school. That's fair. how is it fair when the scammers who run private schools have already collected money from their customers ?? why do they need more money from the government ?? sounds like an inequitable situation to me. private should mean private and not being topped up by the government :( It's fair because it is what is wanted by all the parties involved. What would be unfair is to deny them this choice out of envy and ignorance and make all children suffer to satisfy the definition of private. Quote: Yes it's been tested and it works Don't be so naive. Anything can be shown to 'work' if you put the goal posts right in front of it and push it hard enough. Go and check out the current crop of scammers running child care centers here. There is no proper learning programs because it is played based bullshit. The kids are restless and irritable because there is nothing to grab and hold their attention. The proprietors who run these joints are in it for the money and nothing else, for the same reason scammers run private schools and hold there hand out for yet more government money  !! Wake up will you. The system doesn't work here that is why kids have numeracy and literacy problems. Look at the publicly run Finnish education system and stop making excuses for the scammers here !! one day it is china you love, then germany and now Finland. You are hard to take seriosly, assuming anyone does. PLAY is the central aspect of early child development. So in otherwords life is as it always is: you are wrong.

and all of those countries have one thing in common. They have a much better education system than ours ;)

and play based learning for infants and pres-school is rubbish and a wasted opportunity of brain development. The appalling numeracy and literacy skills in this country says everything about play based learning !

Quote:

and play based learning for infants and pres-school is rubbish and a wasted opportunity of brain development.

Do you have any actual evidence for this that goes beyond shifting the goal posts to make money for proponents of expensive 'alternative' education methods?

The scientific community has looked into this, and found that any evidence of benefit disappears after a few years.

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 9:48pm:

Quote: and play based learning for infants and pres-school is rubbish and a wasted opportunity of brain development. Do you have any actual evidence for this that goes beyond shifting the goal posts to make money for proponents of expensive 'alternative' education methods? The scientific community has looked into this, and found that any evidence of benefit disappears after a few years.

yes I do. I know people in the industry and have heard all of the horror stories. And you misunderstand Montessori. Montessori teaching is non discriminant and is not exclusive to wealthy people because it was originally aimed at people who couldn't afford a decent education for their kids. There maybe some Montessori schools charging like wounded bulls simply because there is no competition so they can charge what they like.

There is no reason why all child care centers could not adopt Montessori at no extra cost.  At the price some of these child care centers are charging parents they should be offering a much higher level of learning than they are.

Nail,

Quote:

yes I do. I know people in the industry and have heard all of the horror stories. And you misunderstand Montessori. Montessori teaching is non discriminant and is not exclusive to wealthy people because it was originally aimed at people who couldn't afford a decent education for their kids. There maybe some Montessori schools charging like wounded bulls simply because there is no competition so they can charge what they like. There is no reason why all child care centers could not adopt Montessori at no extra cost.  At the price some of these child care centers are charging parents they should be offering a much higher level of learning than they are.

Hear hear Nail,
Kids should start school at 5,
already knowing the alphabet &
how to count to 10 etc.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 11:32pm:

freediver wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 9:48pm: Quote: and play based learning for infants and pres-school is rubbish and a wasted opportunity of brain development. Do you have any actual evidence for this that goes beyond shifting the goal posts to make money for proponents of expensive 'alternative' education methods? The scientific community has looked into this, and found that any evidence of benefit disappears after a few years. yes I do. I know people in the industry and have heard all of the horror stories. And you misunderstand Montessori. Montessori teaching is non discriminant and is not exclusive to wealthy people because it was originally aimed at people who couldn't afford a decent education for their kids. There maybe some Montessori schools charging like wounded bulls simply because there is no competition so they can charge what they like. There is no reason why all child care centers could not adopt Montessori at no extra cost.  At the price some of these child care centers are charging parents they should be offering a much higher level of learning than they are.

You seem to have completely missed the question Nail. I am not asking aabout cost-benefit. I am asking you if there is any real evidence of a benefit (the same things i have asked a dozen times already). The damage done to children's social and physical development is far more significant that the financial cost.

Like I said, the scientific community has looked into the outcomes and found that all benefit disappears. That is, other children catch up in primary, so the efffort put into teaching children when they are obviously far too young is wasted. That is why all the evidence you will find in favour is based only on short term outcomes.

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

Quote: Thats what i said. INVEST MORE IN EDUCATION. How does that translate in any way to giving children a worse education? Have you changed your mind about ending private school subsidies? Or are you completely oblivious to the dozen or so times where I have pointed out that the two issues are entirely separable? Oh wait, the bit you quoted was actually about ending private schooling and implied no net increase in the education budget. So I guess you are still completely oblivious to the main argument about how this would result in a decrease in funding per student. It is not like this is some complicated accounting. Lets try yet again for Borg: when those students shift to the public system, they will go from being partly subsidised to wholly subsidised. That means less money spent per student, because money has to be taken from the students that were already public to increase the new arrivals, and the new arrivals get a massive cut because the parents are not paying extra any more. That means every student gets a worse education. As I have also pointed out, this argument does not change if the total education budget changes. They are two separate issues. Unless you think it is impossible to spend more on education without getting rid of private schools. I'm not sure how I can spell this out any clearer for you SOB. I honestly can not understand why you are still so oblivious to what we have been saying for a dozen pages. [quote]but private schools can provide their own funding and the money can go to public schools

This is where reality kicks in SOB. If you cut the subsidies, most parents would send their children to public schools instead. Not just because it is a kick in the guts for them to have to pay for public schooling via taxes and pay all over again because they don't get their fair share - but also because they simply could not afford it. Most parents who send their children to private schools are regular people without a bottomless bank account who make genuine sacrifices for the better education.


Quote:

If we were to get rid of private schools altogether there would still be more money left over for the public schools

No there would not, because all those private school students would be in public schools. The total amount going to public schools may go up, but the amount per student goes down.


Quote:

and the government is pretty good with moving money around and they can find more money for public schools if it will make them better.

Like I said Borg, they can do this whether they ban private schools or not. It is a completely separate issue.[/quote]

Stop calling me stupid. You know i get your "point" i just disagree.

you have not provided any evidence to support your opinion either so mine is just as valid.

SOB

Quotes went wrong somehow

Quote:

you are one of those people that 'cant be taught'. all your arguments have been addressed multiple times but you seem unable to understand them, You are quite simply wrong but it seems not possible to explain why as you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the argument.

You are stupid

SOB

Bobby. wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:30am:

Nail, Quote: yes I do. I know people in the industry and have heard all of the horror stories. And you misunderstand Montessori. Montessori teaching is non discriminant and is not exclusive to wealthy people because it was originally aimed at people who couldn't afford a decent education for their kids. There maybe some Montessori schools charging like wounded bulls simply because there is no competition so they can charge what they like. There is no reason why all child care centers could not adopt Montessori at no extra cost.  At the price some of these child care centers are charging parents they should be offering a much higher level of learning than they are. Hear hear Nail, Kids should start school at 5, already knowing the alphabet & how to count to 10 etc.

why? being able to repeat by rote is no indication of understanding and as has already been shown that the relative benfit disappears vry quickly. in the meantime, play-based learning has already shown greater social skills development.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

Quote: you are one of those people that 'cant be taught'. all your arguments have been addressed multiple times but you seem unable to understand them, You are quite simply wrong but it seems not possible to explain why as you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the argument. You are stupid SOB

You havent yet answered any single objection to your position. All you do is to repeat your position ad nauseuem without supporting it in any way. When you can provide a single thought-out argument than I will retract the 'you are stupid' claim. But until then. you are earning the title yourself on this topic.

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 9:07am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 8:46am: Quote: you are one of those people that 'cant be taught'. all your arguments have been addressed multiple times but you seem unable to understand them, You are quite simply wrong but it seems not possible to explain why as you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the argument. You are stupid SOB You havent yet answered any single objection to your position. All you do is to repeat your position ad nauseuem without supporting it in any way. When you can provide a single thought-out argument than I will retract the 'you are stupid' claim. But until then. you are earning the title yourself on this topic.

Get some glasses stupid

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 9:42am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:07am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 8:46am: Quote: you are one of those people that 'cant be taught'. all your arguments have been addressed multiple times but you seem unable to understand them, You are quite simply wrong but it seems not possible to explain why as you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the argument. You are stupid SOB You havent yet answered any single objection to your position. All you do is to repeat your position ad nauseuem without supporting it in any way. When you can provide a single thought-out argument than I will retract the 'you are stupid' claim. But until then. you are earning the title yourself on this topic. Get some glasses stupid SOB

Well you are still saying that it is cheaper and better not to pay private schools so that is proof you are not reading and understanding.

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 9:47am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:42am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:07am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 8:46am: Quote: you are one of those people that 'cant be taught'. all your arguments have been addressed multiple times but you seem unable to understand them, You are quite simply wrong but it seems not possible to explain why as you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the argument. You are stupid SOB You havent yet answered any single objection to your position. All you do is to repeat your position ad nauseuem without supporting it in any way. When you can provide a single thought-out argument than I will retract the 'you are stupid' claim. But until then. you are earning the title yourself on this topic. Get some glasses stupid SOB Well you are still saying that it is cheaper and better not to pay private schools so that is proof you are not reading and understanding.

No I am not saying that @ all. Read and comprehend. I am saying it doesnt matter whether its cheaper or not since its supposedly the childrens education we are investing in. Spend what we have to to make public schools decent.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 9:51am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:42am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:07am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 8:46am: Quote: you are one of those people that 'cant be taught'. all your arguments have been addressed multiple times but you seem unable to understand them, You are quite simply wrong but it seems not possible to explain why as you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the argument. You are stupid SOB You havent yet answered any single objection to your position. All you do is to repeat your position ad nauseuem without supporting it in any way. When you can provide a single thought-out argument than I will retract the 'you are stupid' claim. But until then. you are earning the title yourself on this topic. Get some glasses stupid SOB Well you are still saying that it is cheaper and better not to pay private schools so that is proof you are not reading and understanding. No I am not saying that @ all. Read and comprehend. I am saying it doesnt matter whether its cheaper or not since its supposedly the childrens education we are investing in. Spend what we have to to make public schools decent. SOB

thanks for making my point. That isnt nor has it even been the topic under discussion.

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 10:04am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:51am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:42am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:07am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 8:46am: Quote: you are one of those people that 'cant be taught'. all your arguments have been addressed multiple times but you seem unable to understand them, You are quite simply wrong but it seems not possible to explain why as you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the argument. You are stupid SOB You havent yet answered any single objection to your position. All you do is to repeat your position ad nauseuem without supporting it in any way. When you can provide a single thought-out argument than I will retract the 'you are stupid' claim. But until then. you are earning the title yourself on this topic. Get some glasses stupid SOB Well you are still saying that it is cheaper and better not to pay private schools so that is proof you are not reading and understanding. No I am not saying that @ all. Read and comprehend. I am saying it doesnt matter whether its cheaper or not since its supposedly the childrens education we are investing in. Spend what we have to to make public schools decent. SOB thanks for making my point. That isnt nor has it even been the topic under discussion.

I have been saying that ALL ALONG but you obviously cant read or comprehend.

How many socks do you have?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 10:08am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 10:04am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:51am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:42am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:07am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 8:46am: Quote: you are one of those people that 'cant be taught'. all your arguments have been addressed multiple times but you seem unable to understand them, You are quite simply wrong but it seems not possible to explain why as you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the argument. You are stupid SOB You havent yet answered any single objection to your position. All you do is to repeat your position ad nauseuem without supporting it in any way. When you can provide a single thought-out argument than I will retract the 'you are stupid' claim. But until then. you are earning the title yourself on this topic. Get some glasses stupid SOB Well you are still saying that it is cheaper and better not to pay private schools so that is proof you are not reading and understanding. No I am not saying that @ all. Read and comprehend. I am saying it doesnt matter whether its cheaper or not since its supposedly the childrens education we are investing in. Spend what we have to to make public schools decent. SOB thanks for making my point. That isnt nor has it even been the topic under discussion. I have been saying that ALL ALONG but you obviously cant read or comprehend. How many socks do you have? SOB

Do you accept that ending the subsidy of private schools would require MORE govt funding for public schools than it saves?

Im just trying to see if it is possible to get you to actually answer a direct question with a direct answer.

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 10:08am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 10:04am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:51am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:42am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:07am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 8:46am: Quote: you are one of those people that 'cant be taught'. all your arguments have been addressed multiple times but you seem unable to understand them, You are quite simply wrong but it seems not possible to explain why as you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the argument. You are stupid SOB You havent yet answered any single objection to your position. All you do is to repeat your position ad nauseuem without supporting it in any way. When you can provide a single thought-out argument than I will retract the 'you are stupid' claim. But until then. you are earning the title yourself on this topic. Get some glasses stupid SOB Well you are still saying that it is cheaper and better not to pay private schools so that is proof you are not reading and understanding. No I am not saying that @ all. Read and comprehend. I am saying it doesnt matter whether its cheaper or not since its supposedly the childrens education we are investing in. Spend what we have to to make public schools decent. SOB thanks for making my point. That isnt nor has it even been the topic under discussion. I have been saying that ALL ALONG but you obviously cant read or comprehend. How many socks do you have? SOB Do you accept that ending the subsidy of private schools would require MORE govt funding for public schools than it saves? Im just trying to see if it is possible to get you to actually answer a direct question with a direct answer.

No why should i take your word for it? You havent provided me any evidence of such a thing.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 10:57am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 10:12am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 10:08am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 10:04am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:51am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:42am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:07am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 8:46am: Quote: you are one of those people that 'cant be taught'. all your arguments have been addressed multiple times but you seem unable to understand them, You are quite simply wrong but it seems not possible to explain why as you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the argument. You are stupid SOB You havent yet answered any single objection to your position. All you do is to repeat your position ad nauseuem without supporting it in any way. When you can provide a single thought-out argument than I will retract the 'you are stupid' claim. But until then. you are earning the title yourself on this topic. Get some glasses stupid SOB Well you are still saying that it is cheaper and better not to pay private schools so that is proof you are not reading and understanding. No I am not saying that @ all. Read and comprehend. I am saying it doesnt matter whether its cheaper or not since its supposedly the childrens education we are investing in. Spend what we have to to make public schools decent. SOB thanks for making my point. That isnt nor has it even been the topic under discussion. I have been saying that ALL ALONG but you obviously cant read or comprehend. How many socks do you have? SOB Do you accept that ending the subsidy of private schools would require MORE govt funding for public schools than it saves? Im just trying to see if it is possible to get you to actually answer a direct question with a direct answer. No why should i take your word for it? You havent provided me any evidence of such a thing. SOB

are you trying to prove my point??? this has been explained to you DOZENS of times. so let's try again shall we?

1) most private school parents are not wealthy and removing govt subsidies would raise private schools fees by $7500 pers student pa.
2) This woudl then cause most private school students to return to the public school system as they simply cannot afford it.
3) this would increase public school enrollments by around 30%
4) to cover this increased enrollment the govt would have to pay $11,000 pers student simply to keep pace with current funding levels.

the simply an obvious answer is that for every private school student who leaves and goes to the public sector, the govt is $3500 WORSE OFF.

Please tell me you either understand this or wish to question it. and before you questino it keep in mind that almost all education professionals accept that this is correct.

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 11:11am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 10:57am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 10:12am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 10:08am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 10:04am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:51am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:42am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:07am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 8:46am: Quote: you are one of those people that 'cant be taught'. all your arguments have been addressed multiple times but you seem unable to understand them, You are quite simply wrong but it seems not possible to explain why as you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the argument. You are stupid SOB You havent yet answered any single objection to your position. All you do is to repeat your position ad nauseuem without supporting it in any way. When you can provide a single thought-out argument than I will retract the 'you are stupid' claim. But until then. you are earning the title yourself on this topic. Get some glasses stupid SOB Well you are still saying that it is cheaper and better not to pay private schools so that is proof you are not reading and understanding. No I am not saying that @ all. Read and comprehend. I am saying it doesnt matter whether its cheaper or not since its supposedly the childrens education we are investing in. Spend what we have to to make public schools decent. SOB thanks for making my point. That isnt nor has it even been the topic under discussion. I have been saying that ALL ALONG but you obviously cant read or comprehend. How many socks do you have? SOB Do you accept that ending the subsidy of private schools would require MORE govt funding for public schools than it saves? Im just trying to see if it is possible to get you to actually answer a direct question with a direct answer. No why should i take your word for it? You havent provided me any evidence of such a thing. SOB are you trying to prove my point??? this has been explained to you DOZENS of times. so let's try again shall we? 1) most private school parents are not wealthy and removing govt subsidies would raise private schools fees by $7500 pers student pa. 2) This woudl then cause most private school students to return to the public school system as they simply cannot afford it. 3) this would increase public school enrollments by around 30% 4) to cover this increased enrollment the govt would have to pay $11,000 pers student simply to keep pace with current funding levels. the simply an obvious answer is that for every private school student who leaves and goes to the public sector, the govt is $3500 WORSE OFF. Please tell me you either understand this or wish to question it. and before you questino it keep in mind that almost all education professionals accept that this is correct.

so you say.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 11:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 10:57am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 10:12am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 10:08am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 10:04am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:51am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:42am: longweekend58 wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:07am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 8:46am: Quote: you are one of those people that 'cant be taught'. all your arguments have been addressed multiple times but you seem unable to understand them, You are quite simply wrong but it seems not possible to explain why as you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the argument. You are stupid SOB You havent yet answered any single objection to your position. All you do is to repeat your position ad nauseuem without supporting it in any way. When you can provide a single thought-out argument than I will retract the 'you are stupid' claim. But until then. you are earning the title yourself on this topic. Get some glasses stupid SOB Well you are still saying that it is cheaper and better not to pay private schools so that is proof you are not reading and understanding. No I am not saying that @ all. Read and comprehend. I am saying it doesnt matter whether its cheaper or not since its supposedly the childrens education we are investing in. Spend what we have to to make public schools decent. SOB thanks for making my point. That isnt nor has it even been the topic under discussion. I have been saying that ALL ALONG but you obviously cant read or comprehend. How many socks do you have? SOB Do you accept that ending the subsidy of private schools would require MORE govt funding for public schools than it saves? Im just trying to see if it is possible to get you to actually answer a direct question with a direct answer. No why should i take your word for it? You havent provided me any evidence of such a thing. SOB are you trying to prove my point??? this has been explained to you DOZENS of times. so let's try again shall we? 1) most private school parents are not wealthy and removing govt subsidies would raise private schools fees by $7500 pers student pa. 2) This woudl then cause most private school students to return to the public school system as they simply cannot afford it. 3) this would increase public school enrollments by around 30% 4) to cover this increased enrollment the govt would have to pay $11,000 pers student simply to keep pace with current funding levels. the simply an obvious answer is that for every private school student who leaves and goes to the public sector, the govt is $3500 WORSE OFF. Please tell me you either understand this or wish to question it. and before you questino it keep in mind that almost all education professionals accept that this is correct. so you say. SOB

so in summary: the argument exceeds your grasp, correct?