Private vs. Public Schools! (1 Viewer)

[katie tully]

we cant have some kids learning advanced maths and only others learn general that is giving the kids learning advanced maths an advantage in life the only way for true equality is if they all only do general maths

 

[Lentern]

i agree, we should close all selective schools
not class segregation either, kids aiming for 40 atars in with kids aiming for 99.95
all doing the same classes

Oh fuck off that's not what I said. I'm talking first and foremost about resource allocation and you bloody well knew that. I as public schooled from kindergarten to year nine and private schooled thereafter. At the public school if our teacher was unwell or on an excursion etc we would basically be babysat, so long as it wasn't violent and swearing was kept within reason we did what we wanted in those classes. At the private school 90% of the time we'd have a relief teacher who was actually qualified to teach the subject, continue with the lesson plans of our normal teacher and on the rare occasion that specialist relief teacher couldn't be gotten we would still have textbook would left by our teacher which we had to do in silence. How is that fair on a year nine student, were they meant to take responsibility for ensuring they received a competently taught lesson?

 

[katie tully]

hahaha

sounds like you went to a shit school. we always learnt when we had a sub.

so you wouldnt be opposed to all schools having the same funding (per student) and if parents want to pay a bit extra (for extra services like qualified teachers) then they can

 

[Lentern]

hahaha

sounds like you went to a shit school. we always learnt when we had a sub.

so you wouldnt be opposed to all schools having the same funding (per student) and if parents want to pay a bit extra (for extra services like qualified teachers) then they can

Again that is not what I said. Primary and secondary education should be funded entirely and with a few exceptions (eg a blind student) equally. It shouldn't be a bare bones school for the kids whose parents can't or wont pay and a chateau de chenonceau for those kids whose parents can or will supplement the funding. The intentions of the parents are noble but it's just not fair on the children for whom these matters are out of their control.

 

[katie tully]

what you said was the same as what i said

funding should be the same and it should provide an adequate level of education for each student and currently it may be too low to ensure this

but once the right level of education can be attained for each student, would you have any objections to parents being able to pay more on top of that to provide their children with an even better education?

 

[Lentern]

what you said was the same as what i said

funding should be the same and it should provide an adequate level of education for each student and currently it may be too low to ensure this

but once the right level of education can be attained for each student, would you have any objections to parents being able to pay more on top of that to provide their children with an even better education?

Private tuition? Piano lessons? A school trip to the museum? Fine but formalized school fees will just lead us back to where we are now and the idea of parents paying a little bit extra, eg donating to the school, I don't see how that stops becoming an informal pre-requisite for the kids to get into the school. In suppose it could go through scrutinized channels before getting there and then it'd be alright.

 

[katie tully]

do you want to abolish selective schools also?

 

[Lentern]

do you want to abolish selective schools also?

Probably not but would want to read more on the cases for and against before I made a call on that.

 

[Bored_of_HSC]

Most rich people work long hours, which is why its stupid to claim that a significant portion of them are just "leeches", at least in the sense you're claiming.

your whole post was a generalisation of a large demographic of people

Fair enough. Reading back i was being pretty retarded in making a claim to that extent (as KT said).

I still stand by the principle. Simply being born into a rich family provides many opportunities. As a result these people can afford not to work as hard and make the system innefficient.

So? An economy isn't about things being "fair", its about producing goods and services people want. Rich people are smarter so its better that they keep and spend their money than it is for poor people/the state to recieve/spend it instead.

I know this and am not complaining that things should be "fair". Hard work should be rewarded. Our difference is that i believe that the "playing field" should be leveled a little so people have equal opportunities to show their innovation/hard work.

Either way if you're wondering what i mean when i say "a little" i think the current progressive tax system is quite fine. It's just taxes which discourage investment/innovation such as the added capital gains tax which i'm against (ofc as added to the disposable income tax)

SO you think that australia should be poorer if it means greater "equality"?

To a certain extent yes.

Only slightly. I'm talking about making it the prime source of revenue, and greatly minimising/eliminating income taxes. And low income earners could claim most of their tax back ifyou want to cry and hurting the poor.

Not really well read on this.

 

[SylviaB]

Again that is not what I said. Primary and secondary education should be funded entirely and with a few exceptions (eg a blind student) equally. It shouldn't be a bare bones school for the kids whose parents can't or wont pay and a chateau de chenonceau for those kids whose parents can or will supplement the funding. The intentions of the parents are noble but it's just not fair on the children for whom these matters are out of their control.

if you're against people being able to engage in voluntary exchange to purchase better/more goods and services than other people, then you're against people being wealthier than others full stop, ultimately

also, you're assuming that supply is independant of demand. Without the profit incentives provided by school "customers", there would not necessarly be an equivalent amount of resources for consumption in the education industry

 

[Lolsmith]

"private school is a waste"

"people who spend more money get a better education"

yeah lol okay dude

you're obviously speaking from a compromised position thinking that you've been disadvantaged because you think you're different and smarter than everyone you know, I get that. However that begs the question, why aren't you at a selective school then? Also, what school do you go to?

 

[funkshen]

the question is, should private jewish school be allowed?

 

[Lolsmith]

what would be the solution to this Jewish question

 

[funkshen]

what would be the solution to this Jewish question

spread the jews amongst the public schools

equal opportunity for public school students for jewishness at school.

 

[katie tully]

i can see where lentern is coming from
ultimately he believes that public schools are under-funded ultimately, and especially so when compared to private schools
i also think they should recieve equal funding, perhaps more for schools in shit areas even. but removing the option for parents to spend more than they have to on their childs education is fucking atrocious and thats why no one likes you lentern


also fuck that, public schools are not under-funded, they are just horrible at resource allocation. i mean a bunch of teachers and parents are given massive lump sums of money to do whatever they want with, what a stupid idea. yet we wonder why there is so much waste? look at the school halls shit, it was administrated by TEACHERS and most of it was wasted. they are teachers, not engineers, why would we expect them to know how to efficently spend $500,000 on infrastructure?

 

[Lentern]

i can see where lentern is coming from
ultimately he believes that public schools are under-funded ultimately, and especially so when compared to private schools
i also think they should recieve equal funding, perhaps more for schools in shit areas even. but removing the option for parents to spend more than they have to on their childs education is fucking atrocious and thats why no one likes you lentern


also fuck that, public schools are not under-funded, they are just horrible at resource allocation. i mean a bunch of teachers and parents are given massive lump sums of money to do whatever they want with, what a stupid idea. yet we wonder why there is so much waste? look at the school halls shit, it was administrated by TEACHERS and most of it was wasted. they are teachers, not engineers, why would we expect them to know how to efficently spend $500,000 on infrastructure?

How is that "equal" at all? How does that ensure any semblance of an equal opportunity?

 

[Lolsmith]

You're a big ol Christfag, aren't you Lentern?

What about parents who want their children to attend a religious school that the government can't provide for?

 

[Lentern]

You're a big ol Christfag, aren't you Lentern?

What about parents who want their children to attend a religious school that the government can't provide for?

I saw no benefits in the added christian focus at my private high school.

 

[Lolsmith]

So you wouldn't let people have religious high schools either?

 

[Lentern]

So you wouldn't let people have religious high schools either?

In an ideal world no, not with government money.