Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Poll 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 7th, 2012 at 11:47am »

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 22
Send Topic Print
Should taxpayer pay for private education? (Read 9418 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 25827
I like fish
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #120 - 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.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 19441
Brisbane
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #121 - May 9th, 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
Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a 
nice person!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 33475
Gender: male
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #122 - 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:
asian 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 Sad


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.
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
 
asian
New Member
*
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 48
sydney
Gender: male
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #123 - May 9th, 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:
asian 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 Sad


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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 19441
Brisbane
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #124 - May 10th, 2012 at 8:22am
 
asian wrote on May 9th, 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:
asian 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 Sad


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
Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a 
nice person!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
Dooley
Senior Member
****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 345
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #125 - May 10th, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 25827
I like fish
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #126 - May 10th, 2012 at 7:29pm
 
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.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 19441
Brisbane
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #127 - May 10th, 2012 at 7:42pm
 
"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

Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a 
nice person!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 25827
I like fish
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #128 - May 10th, 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.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 33475
Gender: male
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #129 - May 10th, 2012 at 8:06pm
 
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 8:18am:
asian 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.
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: 33475
Gender: male
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #130 - May 10th, 2012 at 8:09pm
 
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 9th, 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.
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: 33475
Gender: male
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #131 - May 10th, 2012 at 8:15pm
 
Dooley wrote on May 10th, 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.
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 lastnail
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 13399
Gender: male
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #132 - May 10th, 2012 at 9:33pm
 
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:
asian 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 Sad


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 Wink

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 !


Back to top
 

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Luke Muehlhauser
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 25827
I like fish
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #133 - 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.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sir lastnail
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 13399
Gender: male
Re: Should taxpayer pay for private education?
Reply #134 - May 10th, 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.
Back to top
 

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Luke Muehlhauser
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 22
Send Topic Print