freediver wrote on May 8
th, 2012 at 8:18pm:
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8
th, 2012 at 12:42pm:
How does saving money mean better education?
Because it means that we get more value for the amount we spend. It means that both public and private school students get a better education out of the amount of money spent by the government. This is true regardless of how much money the government actually spends. It is illogical to link the public/private debate with the broader debate on how much should be spent on education.
Private education system is mainly practised in english speaking countries, compared to other European countries.
I cannot speak for Asian countries, because I do not know their system.
What the private system supports is elitism, because often job applicants from public school system have little chance to get jobs in higher paid jobs.
My own children, who were both educated in the public system can vouch for that, yet now they are using the private system to educate their own children, to give them a better chance in life, yet at considerable cost and effort.
The irony of all this is, that the students in the European countries with little or no private school systems perform as well or better than students from the dual system.
You are confusing two separate issues. The value placed on education, and the total amount spent, are separate issues to the private/public debate. Subsidised private schools improve the education for all students, regardless of the total amount spent by the government. It is effectively an extra education tax on the rich that allows the rich to put more money into both public and private education, for the benefit of all.
Forum
Pages: 
Should taxpayer pay for private education? (Read 19098 times)
