Australian Politics Forum - Should taxpayer pay for private education?

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26588
Australia

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #150 - May 11^th, 2012 at 11:25am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #151 - May 11^th, 2012 at 11:50am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26588
Australia

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #152 - May 11^th, 2012 at 12:03pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 11:50am:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

Dont be an idiot. Oh sorry you cant help it. Here is babytalk for you:

You expect me to believe you because you say so? I stated my opinion and you stated yours. Its all opinion unless you show me some evidence that what you are saying is true freediver/tolerator/sock.

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #153 - May 11^th, 2012 at 12:17pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 11:50am:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

Dont be an idiot. Oh sorry you cant help it. Here is babytalk for you:

You expect me to believe you because you say so? I stated my opinion and you stated yours. Its all opinion unless you show me some evidence that what you are saying is true freediver/tolerator/sock.

SOB

it is a FACT that the govt expends around $11000 per public student and $7500 per public student. even the education union doesnt pretend otherwise. My position isnt an opinion. it is a fact that is not disputed by people who can count. Do yuo accept these two figures or do you just want to say that is an opinion as well?

BTW the reference to 'socks' is close to the lamest argument you can make especially since it is about as dumb as you can be.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26588
Australia

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #154 - May 11^th, 2012 at 12:21pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 11:50am:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

Dont be an idiot. Oh sorry you cant help it. Here is babytalk for you:

You expect me to believe you because you say so? I stated my opinion and you stated yours. Its all opinion unless you show me some evidence that what you are saying is true freediver/tolerator/sock.

SOB

it is a FACT that the govt expends around $11000 per public student and $7500 per public student. even the education union doesnt pretend otherwise. My position isnt an opinion. it is a fact that is not disputed by people who can count. Do yuo accept these two figures or do you just want to say that is an opinion as well?

BTW the reference to 'socks' is close to the lamest argument you can make especially since it is about as dumb as you can be.

Oh really. A fact huh? Why should i believe you? Because you said so?

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #155 - May 11^th, 2012 at 12:26pm

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

Spend what we have to to make public schools decent.

SOB

Being interested in education and being motivated to do well in schools is not something you can buy for money.

A lot of public schools are crap for reasons no money can fix. Many have reached a point where extra funding is not going to make any difference.

Extra funding to repair vandalism, to remove graffiti, to pay for teachers on stress leave, to pay for agency teachers because there are not enough regular ones who want to or are willing to work in these crap schools - that's the wrong funding. Yes it would be extra but it would just throwing good money after bad.

No amount of extra funding will change the personal ethos of the disruptive, stupid, lumpen pupils and their families in these crap schools and crap areas. SO parents who can see this take their children out of such schools and pay extra in private schools where the funding is not spent on coping with the dregs who set the tone and are permitted to set the tone by the education policy establishment.

These parents have perceived that these are sink schools because of the people who send their children there and not because of lack of funding and rather than battle the establishment - education academics, government bureaucrats, captains of the multicultural industry and lippy proles, chavs and assorted other agents of decline - , they have moved their kids to schools where they do not have to battle the agents of decline Parents who send their kids to private schools have given up on the public system in their area and have decided to let the sink schools sink.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26588
Australia

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #156 - May 11^th, 2012 at 12:32pm

Soren wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:26pm:

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

Spend what we have to to make public schools decent.

SOB

Being interested in education and being motivated to do well in schools is not something you can buy for money.

A lot of public schools are crap for reasons no money can fix. Many have reached a point where extra funding is not going to make any difference.

Extra funding to repair vandalism, to remove graffiti, to pay for teachers on stress leave, to pay for agency teachers because there are not enough regular ones who want to or are willing to work in these crap schools - that's the wrong funding. Yes it would be extra but it would just throwing good money after bad.

No amount of extra funding will change the personal ethos of the disruptive, stupid, lumpen pupils and their families in these crap schools and crap areas. SO parents who can see this take their children out of such schools and pay extra in private schools where the funding is not spent on coping with the dregs who set the tone and are permitted to set the tone by the education policy establishment.

These parents have perceived that these are sink schools because of the people who send their children there and not because of lack of funding and rather than battle the establishment - education academics, government bureaucrats, captains of the multicultural industry and lippy proles, chavs and assorted other agents of decline - , they have moved their kids to schools where they do not have to battle the agents of decline Parents who send their kids to private schools have given up on the public system in their area and have decided to let the sink schools sink.

Who are the crap ppl? the reason they are stupid is because of the education system. It should be fixed. Teach actual reading and writing and english and science. Pay the teachers a decent wage so they have motivation.

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #157 - May 11^th, 2012 at 12:35pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:32pm:

Soren wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:26pm:

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

Spend what we have to to make public schools decent.

SOB

Being interested in education and being motivated to do well in schools is not something you can buy for money.

A lot of public schools are crap for reasons no money can fix. Many have reached a point where extra funding is not going to make any difference.

Extra funding to repair vandalism, to remove graffiti, to pay for teachers on stress leave, to pay for agency teachers because there are not enough regular ones who want to or are willing to work in these crap schools - that's the wrong funding. Yes it would be extra but it would just throwing good money after bad.

No amount of extra funding will change the personal ethos of the disruptive, stupid, lumpen pupils and their families in these crap schools and crap areas. SO parents who can see this take their children out of such schools and pay extra in private schools where the funding is not spent on coping with the dregs who set the tone and are permitted to set the tone by the education policy establishment.

These parents have perceived that these are sink schools because of the people who send their children there and not because of lack of funding and rather than battle the establishment - education academics, government bureaucrats, captains of the multicultural industry and lippy proles, chavs and assorted other agents of decline - , they have moved their kids to schools where they do not have to battle the agents of decline Parents who send their kids to private schools have given up on the public system in their area and have decided to let the sink schools sink.

Who are the crap ppl? the reason they are stupid is because of the education system. It should be fixed. Teach actual reading and writing and english and science. Pay the teachers a decent wage so they have motivation.

SOB

So you think everyone can be a genius? If every student doesn't achieve a 150+ IQ and an A++ on every test it's a failure of the teachers?

Google "the achievement gap."

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26588
Australia

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #158 - May 11^th, 2012 at 12:38pm

... wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:32pm:

Soren wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:26pm:

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

Spend what we have to to make public schools decent.

SOB

Being interested in education and being motivated to do well in schools is not something you can buy for money.

A lot of public schools are crap for reasons no money can fix. Many have reached a point where extra funding is not going to make any difference.

Extra funding to repair vandalism, to remove graffiti, to pay for teachers on stress leave, to pay for agency teachers because there are not enough regular ones who want to or are willing to work in these crap schools - that's the wrong funding. Yes it would be extra but it would just throwing good money after bad.

No amount of extra funding will change the personal ethos of the disruptive, stupid, lumpen pupils and their families in these crap schools and crap areas. SO parents who can see this take their children out of such schools and pay extra in private schools where the funding is not spent on coping with the dregs who set the tone and are permitted to set the tone by the education policy establishment.

These parents have perceived that these are sink schools because of the people who send their children there and not because of lack of funding and rather than battle the establishment - education academics, government bureaucrats, captains of the multicultural industry and lippy proles, chavs and assorted other agents of decline - , they have moved their kids to schools where they do not have to battle the agents of decline Parents who send their kids to private schools have given up on the public system in their area and have decided to let the sink schools sink.

Who are the crap ppl? the reason they are stupid is because of the education system. It should be fixed. Teach actual reading and writing and english and science. Pay the teachers a decent wage so they have motivation.

SOB

So you think everyone can be a genius? If every student doesn't achieve a 150+ IQ and an A++ on every test it's a failure of the teachers?

Google "the achievement gap."

Where exactly did I say that? Hmmmmm?

Poor doesnt equal stupid though.

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #159 - May 11^th, 2012 at 12:43pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:38pm:

... wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:32pm:

Soren wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:26pm:

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

Spend what we have to to make public schools decent.

SOB

Being interested in education and being motivated to do well in schools is not something you can buy for money.

A lot of public schools are crap for reasons no money can fix. Many have reached a point where extra funding is not going to make any difference.

Extra funding to repair vandalism, to remove graffiti, to pay for teachers on stress leave, to pay for agency teachers because there are not enough regular ones who want to or are willing to work in these crap schools - that's the wrong funding. Yes it would be extra but it would just throwing good money after bad.

No amount of extra funding will change the personal ethos of the disruptive, stupid, lumpen pupils and their families in these crap schools and crap areas. SO parents who can see this take their children out of such schools and pay extra in private schools where the funding is not spent on coping with the dregs who set the tone and are permitted to set the tone by the education policy establishment.

These parents have perceived that these are sink schools because of the people who send their children there and not because of lack of funding and rather than battle the establishment - education academics, government bureaucrats, captains of the multicultural industry and lippy proles, chavs and assorted other agents of decline - , they have moved their kids to schools where they do not have to battle the agents of decline Parents who send their kids to private schools have given up on the public system in their area and have decided to let the sink schools sink.

Who are the crap ppl? the reason they are stupid is because of the education system. It should be fixed. Teach actual reading and writing and english and science. Pay the teachers a decent wage so they have motivation.

SOB

So you think everyone can be a genius? If every student doesn't achieve a 150+ IQ and an A++ on every test it's a failure of the teachers?

Google "the achievement gap."

Where exactly did I say that? Hmmmmm?

Poor doesnt equal stupid though.

SOB

FFS SOB, do you have to play this game? You clearly implied in the highlighted passage that you think better teachers = smarter students. It's a factor, but a minor one. Not everyone has the capacity or the will to learn.

Google the acheivement gap, and see the results, in the US especially, where they have thrown billions upon billions of dollars at it, only for the gap to stubbornly remain.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #160 - May 11^th, 2012 at 12:48pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 11:50am:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

Dont be an idiot. Oh sorry you cant help it. Here is babytalk for you:

You expect me to believe you because you say so? I stated my opinion and you stated yours. Its all opinion unless you show me some evidence that what you are saying is true freediver/tolerator/sock.

SOB

it is a FACT that the govt expends around $11000 per public student and $7500 per public student. even the education union doesnt pretend otherwise. My position isnt an opinion. it is a fact that is not disputed by people who can count. Do yuo accept these two figures or do you just want to say that is an opinion as well?

BTW the reference to 'socks' is close to the lamest argument you can make especially since it is about as dumb as you can be.

Oh really. A fact huh? Why should i believe you? Because you said so?

SOB

no. because the GOVERNMENT says so. But I see your argument (and I use the term loosely). You dont like private schools so you just refuse to accept any fact - never mind opinion - that doesnt agree with you. It makes 'debate' with you impossible, not to say worthless.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26588
Australia

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #161 - May 11^th, 2012 at 12:51pm

... wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:43pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:38pm:

... wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:32pm:

Soren wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:26pm:

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

Spend what we have to to make public schools decent.

SOB

Being interested in education and being motivated to do well in schools is not something you can buy for money.

A lot of public schools are crap for reasons no money can fix. Many have reached a point where extra funding is not going to make any difference.

Extra funding to repair vandalism, to remove graffiti, to pay for teachers on stress leave, to pay for agency teachers because there are not enough regular ones who want to or are willing to work in these crap schools - that's the wrong funding. Yes it would be extra but it would just throwing good money after bad.

No amount of extra funding will change the personal ethos of the disruptive, stupid, lumpen pupils and their families in these crap schools and crap areas. SO parents who can see this take their children out of such schools and pay extra in private schools where the funding is not spent on coping with the dregs who set the tone and are permitted to set the tone by the education policy establishment.

These parents have perceived that these are sink schools because of the people who send their children there and not because of lack of funding and rather than battle the establishment - education academics, government bureaucrats, captains of the multicultural industry and lippy proles, chavs and assorted other agents of decline - , they have moved their kids to schools where they do not have to battle the agents of decline Parents who send their kids to private schools have given up on the public system in their area and have decided to let the sink schools sink.

Who are the crap ppl? the reason they are stupid is because of the education system. It should be fixed. Teach actual reading and writing and english and science. Pay the teachers a decent wage so they have motivation.

SOB

So you think everyone can be a genius? If every student doesn't achieve a 150+ IQ and an A++ on every test it's a failure of the teachers?

Google "the achievement gap."

Where exactly did I say that? Hmmmmm?

Poor doesnt equal stupid though.

SOB

FFS SOB, do you have to play this game? You clearly implied in the highlighted passage that you think better teachers = smarter students. It's a factor, but a minor one. Not everyone has the capacity or the will to learn.

Google the acheivement gap, and see the results, in the US especially, where they have thrown billions upon billions of dollars at it, only for the gap to stubbornly remain.

Better teachers = better educated students.

Poor does not = stupid

There are stupid ppl in private schools too

I see you have given up on your "facts" now. Its opinion until you show some evidence.

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30923
Gender: male

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #162 - May 11^th, 2012 at 12:56pm

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 8:10am:

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

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.

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.

what do you call suburbs full of feral children that avoid school with welfare dependent parents ??

as well as poor numeracy and literacy skills !!

Do you think the current system is good ??

Play based learning. The kids are still playing at the age of 10 but can't read or write or even add up Sad

And Montessori doesn't mean no physical activity. You seem to be obsessed with the sports mentality which means squat
when you talk to a china man who just wants his kids to excel academically and use that education to make their country prosper. Who do you think will have a decent career path in the future ? Play based or Montessori educated children ?

Back to top

"If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region..." - Benjamin Netanyahu in 1995

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #163 - May 11^th, 2012 at 1:05pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

... wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:43pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:38pm:

... wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:32pm:

Soren wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:26pm:

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

Spend what we have to to make public schools decent.

SOB

Being interested in education and being motivated to do well in schools is not something you can buy for money.

A lot of public schools are crap for reasons no money can fix. Many have reached a point where extra funding is not going to make any difference.

Extra funding to repair vandalism, to remove graffiti, to pay for teachers on stress leave, to pay for agency teachers because there are not enough regular ones who want to or are willing to work in these crap schools - that's the wrong funding. Yes it would be extra but it would just throwing good money after bad.

No amount of extra funding will change the personal ethos of the disruptive, stupid, lumpen pupils and their families in these crap schools and crap areas. SO parents who can see this take their children out of such schools and pay extra in private schools where the funding is not spent on coping with the dregs who set the tone and are permitted to set the tone by the education policy establishment.

These parents have perceived that these are sink schools because of the people who send their children there and not because of lack of funding and rather than battle the establishment - education academics, government bureaucrats, captains of the multicultural industry and lippy proles, chavs and assorted other agents of decline - , they have moved their kids to schools where they do not have to battle the agents of decline Parents who send their kids to private schools have given up on the public system in their area and have decided to let the sink schools sink.

Who are the crap ppl? the reason they are stupid is because of the education system. It should be fixed. Teach actual reading and writing and english and science. Pay the teachers a decent wage so they have motivation.

SOB

So you think everyone can be a genius? If every student doesn't achieve a 150+ IQ and an A++ on every test it's a failure of the teachers?

Google "the achievement gap."

Where exactly did I say that? Hmmmmm?

Poor doesnt equal stupid though.

SOB

FFS SOB, do you have to play this game? You clearly implied in the highlighted passage that you think better teachers = smarter students. It's a factor, but a minor one. Not everyone has the capacity or the will to learn.

Google the acheivement gap, and see the results, in the US especially, where they have thrown billions upon billions of dollars at it, only for the gap to stubbornly remain.

Better teachers = better educated students.

Poor does not = stupid

There are stupid ppl in private schools too

I see you have given up on your "facts" now. Its opinion until you show some evidence.

SOB

prove it. since you dont like to accept facts then show me studies that prove that better teachers = better students. and then show me why better PAID teachers = better teachers.

your 'argument' is NOTHING more than you own opinion supported by no facts and even less logic.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #164 - May 11^th, 2012 at 1:08pm

Sir lastnail wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 12:56pm:

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 8:10am:

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

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.

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.

what do you call suburbs full of feral children that avoid school with welfare dependent parents ??

as well as poor numeracy and literacy skills !!

Do you think the current system is good ??

Play based learning. The kids are still playing at the age of 10 but can't read or write or even add up Sad

And Montessori doesn't mean no physical activity. You seem to be obsessed with the sports mentality which means squat
when you talk to a china man who just wants his kids to excel academically and use that education to make their country prosper. Who do you think will have a decent career path in the future ? Play based or Montessori educated children ?

and so here we have it again... the hangnail has discovered one methodology and equates it to the solution to all problems. That is one of yoru basic problems. Your viewpoint is so narrow that no 'mix of ideas' ever occurs to you. Be it EVS or house prices or pre-school learning, you hav but ONE SINGLE extremely narrow point of view with absolutely no shades of gray. You make a bigot look open-minded. You make vegy and pansi look smart.

you must have had a very lousy childhood. never played, never learned.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Should taxpayers money pay for private education ?
Yes 11 (35.5%) No 20 (64.5%) Total votes: 31 « Created by: Sir lastnail on: May 7^th, 2012 at 11:47am »