Julie Bishop's Vision for Education in Australia (Merged) (2 Viewers)

[volition]

That assumes that you can trust the private sector with something as vital as education, that a private sector would be able to successfully implement a standardised curriculum in an entire state (although the government seems to have trouble between states) and that there'd be a point to such an act.

Believe it or not, there are people who don’t trust the public sector with things too you know. (ie. I could equally argue that you're assuming the public sector can be trusted with something as vital as education)A long time ago, back when state education wasn’t the ‘norm’, people didn’t want the state to take their kid away to school! These days, people cry out for the state to take their kids to be ‘educated’.

Saying that the private sector can’t be trusted but the public sector can is a bit rich imo. Look at the maintenance backlog in public schools, the HSC system (a system that clearly advantages richer students who can afford tuition), the redundancy of some of the courses (I recall learning some things more than once and unnecessarily), the content (debatable here, but we all have our own little opinions about what’s necessary and what isn’t, I’m just saying let people have more choice).

Point is, at least in a private sector, you have the right to refuse the service, whereas with the government, you have NO choice. Whether or not you get a poor quality education from the government, you PAY.

As for the ‘value’ of a standardised curriculum, I don’t see any great big need to have a unified curriculum. Let schools teach whatever they want, and parents decide what school to send their kid to. Let universities do their own entrance testing, no need for a big HSC/UAI system that tries (and fails) to rank >60000 students across different institutions/subjects/teachers into increments of .05

Private certification exists, let me give you the example of accounting, there are two big competing ones in Australia (CA and CPA). They’re both privately run, and in order to get accredited, universities have to have certain content in their subjects. So as far as ‘standardising curriculums’ is concerned, the mechanism is already in place to ensure that education meets a particular standard.

Or that society thinks they need them more. I'd argue that a metalworker, or a coal miner is far more useful to society than a beureacrat, and yet...

Ok if you’re talking about bureaucrats in particular, well my response is that this is as a result of the government’s existence, and is something that we’re just going to have to put up with because the government has no way of ascertaining the true value of goods/services. The only way to truly know the value of a good is to have people exchange for it.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

the HSC system (a system that clearly advantages richer students who can afford tuition)

You're going to propose a system which doesn't 'advantage' richer students?

 

[volition]

You're going to propose a system which doesn't 'advantage' richer students?

Alright, fair enough. It does shit me that they try to make out like it is fair though.

Part of it is that I just believe that universities should cost different amounts to reflect the different quality/prestige of the degree. At the moment, we all pay the same for different degrees (within the same cost band). Rather than all just indirectly paying for tuition to get into uni, we should all just pay the nominal entrance fee that a uni wants to charge, and if they want to have merit/scholarship placing then that's up to the uni to decide.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

and yet you argued so strongly against Peter Debnam's idea to reduce the number of bureaucrats just a little while ago

I argued against that based on the fact that it was a slash and burn policy, not something that I'd want to see from a Premier.

when it's not now with catholic/independent schools?

It is.

Volition: Once more, I don't really see the difference between what you're proposing and what currently exists. Maintainance is an issue, but if you're proposing a completely privatised system you'd have much more of a champagne glass of wealth in schools than we do now. Schools would still be administered by a central board, much like it is now. Blah blah blah, at the end of it, we need to keep schools public to ensure that everyone recieves equal opportunities within education. Privatised education doesn't provide that. Want proof? Take a look at private schools versus public schools right now.

 

[volition]

I don't want to sound confrontational Nebuchanezzar, but it seems like you just want to keep the quality of the education for the rich down, for the sake of "keeping things equal". Such politics is merely the politics of envy. It offends your moral sensibilities that richer people can afford better quality education so you'd rather everyone just had a poor education (at taxpayer's expense).

I'd rather just trust that the market will provide a cheaper, somewhat less effective (but still functional) service for the poor. Similar to the same way that not everybody can afford a Mercedes, but a Daihatsu will get you around. Equality of incomes is not a realistically achievable goal for humanity (it's a conceptually impossible goal to have perfect equality while retaining individuality), we're much better off allowing people as much economic freedom as we can give them, by reducing tax.

Some people argue that it's ok to tax other people(personally, I'm not convinced about the argument for the right to somebody else's property) because of the vague positive externality education has, but without some kind of superhuman intellect to tell us exactly where to put what resource(as in, who should train to do what, how much money we should spend on each particular expense), we would never be able to actually do better in an overall sense anyway. Government appropriation of private property typically leads to wasted resources because we haven't discovered the kind of system that can perform a service more efficiently than free markets.

 

[volition]

Envy yes, but look at the current system. Private and Public schools are hardly on an equal level. Same goes for private schools (ie Compare Kings to say Inaburra) and public schools (compare Sydney Secondary College to say Picnic Point High). Is it not fair to assume that every public and every private should be on the same level (I'm talking Public-Public and Private-Private as oppose to a comparision of the two systems) Education is something that should be provided at a quality level regardless of what one can afford. Quality education will help later in life no?

The current system is not a true indication of what schooling would be like under a completely privatised system, both 'private' and public schools receive huge government handouts and they have to follow regulations, which eats up a lot of money. If they were allowed to do what they wanted to, we might even see competing private certifications come up and a school might teach according to X standards and another might teach to Y standards. This would be much better than what we have now where the one-size-fits all method is used.

If you truly believed that quality education will help later in life, then why do you want to bring down the quality of the best schools just so that 'everybody is equal'?

 

[banco55]

I see what you are saying, and yes that would be a better system, except every school would be teaching a different cirriculum which makes it hard to find a level pegging field say for Universities who use the UAI system now based on the HSC. Every school would have a different system, no?



To be honest, I am totally the opposite. I'd rather spend a shitload of cash NOW to bring all schools up to par with the BEST SCHOOLS as the target.' Expensive yes, but it will mean that everyone is achieving a similar education at a similar level, which will reap benefits down the track. If that makes sense?...Basically standardise yes, but in line with the best, not the worst.

There's little evidence that just throwing money at the problem does very much. If you have a poor curriculum, uninterested parents etc. money isn't going to make much of a difference. In fact there was something of an experiment when a judge ordered Kansas (US) to increase per student funding at kansas inner city schools dramatically (above private school levels). Their results barely moved.

 

[volition]

I see what you are saying, and yes that would be a better system, except every school would be teaching a different cirriculum which makes it hard to find a level pegging field say for Universities who use the UAI system now based on the HSC. Every school would have a different system, no?

That's nothing to be worried about, universities are more than capable of running their own entrance exams and determining who should study there.

One possible system would be with competing standards that arise, and universities would specify to what level you had to get in each particular standard to gain entry. Maybe you need to have achieved 4 band 6's in standard X, but maybe standard Y is a little harder so you only need to get 3 band 6's in that. You get the idea anyway.

Or maybe universities/technical colleges/tertiary institutions would just charge a nominal fee and accept as many people who are willing to pay the fee.

To be honest, I am totally the opposite. I'd rather spend a shitload of cash NOW to bring all schools up to par with the BEST SCHOOLS as the target.' Expensive yes, but it will mean that everyone is achieving a similar education at a similar level, which will reap benefits down the track. If that makes sense?...Basically standardise yes, but in line with the best, not the worst.

I don't think it'd be fair to take that much money away from people, they need money to lead their own lives. It's grossly unfair to just try and force an equality like that, it's like saying "everybody should be able to drive a mercedes" and then taxing people to the nose to be able to achieve it. A private system protects your right to your own property moreso than a public one that has no qualms with taking money as it sees 'necessary for the public good'. Don't forget they're just voted in by us anyway! The government is not necessarily any more intelligent than we are.

Private businesses are ultimately far more efficient, because they actually have an incentive to care about costs. It's just the inability of the government to apportion resources, as I've said, without an actual exchange of goods of worth and without some actual competition, the whole thing is doomed to fail.

 

[volition]

Much more work for unis to find a standardised entry across the board with what 40000 different syllabuses across NSW. But that said, that would be alot better than leaving it up to the government or one institution such as UAC.

They can do their own examinations, or just let anyone in who can pay. Or as I said, competing private standards, just like in the professions like accounting with CA/CPA.

Much like HECS or are we talking an upfront payment?

It'd be whatever the uni wants to do, I don't want to take away their own right to private property. If they feel it is profitable to allow students to pay the loan back once they've entered the workforce then that could work, or they might not think it's profitable to do that, and insist on upfront payment.

I didn't vote the Howard Government in, so don't blame me. And I don't think they are more intelligent than the average joe. Also, is it not also grossly unfair to expect that you can only get a decent education if you are rich? Or too lower the standardised expectations to a point where everyone can afford to be educated?

It's grossly unfair to expect that you have a right to somebody else's money AGAINST their own will. The fact that a third party(the govt) is the one taking money doesn't change it, it's still wrong. Taxation should be reduced wherever possible.

THis is true, but to be honest I don't see how a privatisation of the education system will make it more efficient. Yes their will be better resources, but many families will be disadvanged. Will we have to rely on scholarship systems? This will a) Increase school costs (individual school delivered scholarships) or b) Increase taxes (Govt delivered scholarships). Or will these families who cant afford private education just be told "You can't afford it...too bad"?

There would be a range of different school types, and like I said, not everybody can afford a Mercedes, but a Daihatsu will get you around. As long as there is a demand for education services, then I'm sure there would be companies that find cheaper ways to do things and provide cheap education.

For example if you don't mind larger class sizes, maybe something could be done there to provide cheap education albeit with a bigger class. There's been a bit of research done on it and the results have been mixed, I think in some cases it actually didn't matter that much that the class size was big. Look at uni for example, at my uni you can have hundreds of people in one lecture! Dunno if this particular strategy would work with younger kids, but it's just a suggestion.

Look at the existence of those no-frills type brands that Coles and Woolies are bringing in, or the existence of heaps cheap supermarkets like Aldi. Where there is a need (and money to be made), a business will step in.

Even if some can't afford school, and they're clearly bright individuals who should be at school, then it actually makes sense for schools to provide scholarships to these people to be able to show off the intellectual/sporting talent at the school. They would only do it if it were in their interests, so there's no problem with increasing costs in this way. That's the beauty of capitalism, working to your own self-interest actually benefits everybody in the end via increased productivity and better access to services/goods. It's the only system I know of, where working to your self-interest benefits everybody.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I don't want to sound confrontational Nebuchanezzar, but it seems like you just want to keep the quality of the education for the rich down, for the sake of "keeping things equal". Such politics is merely the politics of envy. It offends your moral sensibilities that richer people can afford better quality education so you'd rather everyone just had a poor education (at taxpayer's expense).

I'd rather just trust that the market will provide a cheaper, somewhat less effective (but still functional) service for the poor. Similar to the same way that not everybody can afford a Mercedes, but a Daihatsu will get you around. Equality of incomes is not a realistically achievable goal for humanity (it's a conceptually impossible goal to have perfect equality while retaining individuality), we're much better off allowing people as much economic freedom as we can give them, by reducing tax.

I'd rather just trust that the market will provide a cheaper, somewhat less effective (but still functional) service for the poor. Similar to the same way that not everybody can afford a Mercedes, but a Daihatsu will get you around. Equality of incomes is not a realistically achievable goal for humanity (it's a conceptually impossible goal to have perfect equality while retaining individuality), we're much better off allowing people as much economic freedom as we can give them, by reducing tax.

The fuck? Yeah, that's it, I'm some jealous douchebag who lives in a hole who freeloads off the train everyday to get to university. No, wait, that's not the case. I think it's just that I don't understand why those who have been unfairly advantaged through no real feat of their own, apart from being luckily born into an existant aristocracy (or less), should recieve more chances in life. I'm not a fan of the champagne glass of wealth, and to privilige children who have done abolsutely nothing to deserve a better funded education over those who have done nothing to deserve a lesser funded education goes against every whiff of common sense that exists in this world.

Like it or not, the hsc DOES favour those who come from rich families. You can blame that in part on the fact that it favours those who can afford tutors, and I'd agree, but I for one would like to hear of a suggestion for an exam system that doesn't favour those who can afford private tutoring. It probably doesn't exist, hence, is it not the governments responsibility to at least level out the playing field, even with the knowledge that what they're doing might not solve all the problems? To make all schools public, to make all opportunities equal would at the very LEAST, be a step in the right direction.

Some people argue that it's ok to tax other people (personally, I'm not convinced about the argument for the right to somebody else's property) because of the vague positive externality education has, but without some kind of superhuman intellect to tell us exactly where to put what resource(as in, who should train to do what, how much money we should spend on each particular expense), we would never be able to actually do better in an overall sense anyway. Government appropriation of private property typically leads to wasted resources because we haven't discovered the kind of system that can perform a service more efficiently than free markets

At the expense of equal opportunities for children regardless of their inherited wealth?

If you truly believed that quality education will help later in life, then why do you want to bring down the quality of the best schools just so that 'everybody is equal'?

Um...so that everyone has an equal chance? Also, it's alarmist to suggest that the levels of education in Australia would fall to incomprehably low standards, as you're suggesting, under a government controlled education system. I ask for proof to back up such claims.

There's little evidence that just throwing money at the problem does very much. If you have a poor curriculum, uninterested parents etc. money isn't going to make much of a difference. In fact there was something of an experiment when a judge ordered Kansas (US) to increase per student funding at kansas inner city schools dramatically (above private school levels). Their results barely moved.

There's also this little experiment called these two kids at some school in South Western Sydney. They did their work despite not having...the best standards of schools and got where they wanted to go, one in a teaching course at Sydney the other in an aeronautical engineering course at Sydney. It's pretty obvious that if kids really want to acheive, they're going to. That begs the question, why not level out the playing field so that those who don't really want to acheive, yet have been afforded private education get a little less funding, and those who could acheive but don't have the resources to do so might go a little better. Another example. There was this guy at a private school in our area who came from a rich family and got a UAI of about 40. Another example is that there was this guy who went to my school, who was much smarter than me (no doubt) who wasn't motivated enough in the HSC and got a UAI of 60. If that guy who got a UAI of 60 had been allocated more funds from the guy who got 40, then it's entirely possible that the guy with 60 would have acheived a lot better. Why deny them funding based on their location, or the schools which they attend? Why not grant everyone opportunities.

I for one, would also like to see the results of your supposed experiment. Sounds like you're only giving one side, really.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

To make all schools public, to make all opportunities equal would at the very LEAST, be a step in the right direction.

I disagree for three reasons:

1) They can just suplement their learning with tutoring/more expensive text books etc...
2) We shouldn't be 'dumbing down' others opportunities to create a level playing field - This is controversial and I'll go into it more if I must.
3) Putting more pressure on the government to pay for education leads to a net loss (at the very least, of funding) for all.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

2) We shouldn't be 'dumbing down' others opportunities to create a level playing field - This is controversial and I'll go into it more if I must.

Please.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Please.

Essentially while you might be able to make an argument that private school funding school be redirected into public schools, I would disagree on any sort of principle that would make it so that extra resources cannot be spent (beyond the allocation of the government) on education - Why deny your country a smarter population?

I would oppose huge funding redirections too, however, when it would price private school students out of the private system and lead to more funding issues for the public system.

 

[frog12986]

Ahh, the old ALP politics of envy. When one becomes a member, does the membership form have a section where you have to describe the chip on your shoulder, or is that merely recognised as a given?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

You seriously believe that the 'extra resources' made by private educational institutions provides for that much of an educational experience? Goodness me no, what most of that money is spent on is on toilets, sporting grounds and buses and such. You've seen those King's College buses? What on earth is the point in that, when there are schools out there struggling to maintain certain faculties? I'd also make the argument that creating a much more even average, as opposed to a heavily weighted (towards both ends) average would result in a much smarter, or at least much more balanced population, although I don't have any evidence to back up such a claim. Two minds are better than one, and in the same way, an educated middle class that outnumbers other extremes would be much more beneficial for society than one highly educated class, one very poorly educated class and a few that hover about the middle. This IS what we're headed towards. Of course, that's based pure in theory.

This argument about the collapse of the private sector leading to an overload of the public sector seems a little dramatised too. We're at a point where the totla destruction of the private system would create large imbalances on the education system, and I'd agree with that idea. If the private system were to immideately cease existence, then there would be massive problems. What I'd propose, or what I'd at least consider is an incremental taxation of the private sector. Lower handouts given to [rich] private schools while introducing taxes for families who choose to use private schools. Keep them low at first, and gradually tip the balance in favour of the public system. The budget seems to be in such a shape that it could also provide some extra funding for this idea, and of course, if need be, use the future fund. What better way to provide for the future, than by investing in education. What better way to equip an economy than by investing in education? What better way to transform Australia (moreso) into a technically based manufacturing stronghold, than by investing in education?

It's worth mentioning what Mark Latham once said, which I mostly agree with. It doesn't matter whether something is privately or publicly owned, what matters is that everyone is receiving a fair and equal education. I'd agree with that, but I'd also suggest that an education system with any amount of fee paying students is unable to maintain fairness in education. So while rich private schools would be taxed first, my ultimate goal would be to be rid of the private system within a period of time.

Ahh, the old ALP politics of envy. When one becomes a member, does the membership form have a section where you have to describe the chip on your shoulder, or is that merely recognised as a given?

suck my penis.

 

[volition]

The fuck? Yeah, that's it, I'm some jealous douche bag who lives in a hole who freeloads off the train everyday to get to university. No, wait, that's not the case. I think it's just that I don't understand why those who have been unfairly advantaged through no real feat of their own, apart from being luckily born into an existent aristocracy (or less), should receive more chances in life. I'm not a fan of the champagne glass of wealth, and to privilege children who have done absolutely nothing to deserve a better funded education over those who have done nothing to deserve a lesser funded education goes against every whiff of common sense that exists in this world.

So do you also think everybody should drive the same car and live in the exact same type of house and everything else too? If you don’t, what reason is it for? Where do you draw the line between where people should have equality and where it's "ok" to not be equal?

At the expense of equal opportunities for children regardless of their inherited wealth?

Do you believe taking people's money against their will is justifiable based on this? Human rights are not protected by violating other human rights, human rights are protected by upholding rights like the right to private property.

Um...so that everyone has an equal chance? Also, it's alarmist to suggest that the levels of education in Australia would fall to incomprehably low standards, as you're suggesting, under a government controlled education system. I ask for proof to back up such claims.

The ‘proof’ is the lack of an accurate price, without this, all else is less efficient. The government monopoly doesn’t have to trade, and hence the optimal quantities of resources won’t be being used, wastage happens. On top of this, the government incentive to improve service quality is not as strong as a private business’s incentive. For a government, poor quality is invariably tolerated, but for a private firm, poor quality could spell going out of business.

To make all schools public, to make all opportunities equal would at the very LEAST, be a step in the right direction.

Not if you care about having the right to decide where your money goes.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

So do you also think everybody should drive the same car and live in the exact same type of house and everything else too? If you don’t, what reason is it for? Where do you draw the line between where people should have equality and where it's "ok" to not be equal?

Do you believe taking people's money against their will is justifiable based on this? Human rights are not protected by violating other human rights, human rights are protected by upholding rights like the right to private property.

Well, in theory, yes. But of course, that's really not practical, at this time anyway. At the very least, what I do endorse is the idea that those who are rich should be taxed to provide welfare for the poor. Those who are extremely rich should be taxed extreme levels, those who are kinda well off (like I'm guessing you are) should pay moderate taxes, in the same proportion to people like me. For instance, those on an income of $1 billion per year should be taxed a higher percentage than those on an income of $100,000 per year, and from about $60,000 - $40,000 should be taxed roughly the same proportion of their wage, depending on circumstance of course (family, welfare, deductions, socio-economic impact blah blah), and lastly, those on less than $30,000 or so, once again depending on the context of their income, should be taxed considerably less than those on higher incomes. Why? To once more provide a level playing field. Of course, that's not to say I support the traditional communist stereotype of everyone living an an identical house, driving the same identical car. Oh my no, there's got to be variety. What I do propose, is that the money that comes from tax at least provides adequate and similar welfare, for a start. Allow education, healthcare, jobs, transport, everything to be allocated equally to everyone. Subsidise the lives of those who live in Western NSW on a farm, and tax the lives of those who live in Sydney. By no means to I propose levelling everyone out to an equal income. Those who make $100,000+ per year do so probably because they studied hard to get where they are. Give those who deserve to be there a bit of an incentive so the best people keep going there, but at least level out that champagne glass. What's that saying? To each according to his need, from each according to his ability? I subscribe to that view in essence, although mostly through welfare schemes, incentives (making the most needed jobs the most well paid) and not to such an extreme degree.

Not if you care about having the right to decide where your money goes.

Lol, where would you prefer it go? Into another Mercedes-Benz? Perhaps another veranda overlooking your mansion at Cremorne? You, as someone who I'm guessing comes from a priviliged family and so on probably don't like the idea. I, as someone who came from a middle class family on the outskirts of Sydney (two cars in the garage, mortgage, secure job) think it's a great idea. I don't see any problem in forcing those who are most probably employed within the professions to offer their privilige back to society. At the bare bones of it. we're all a part of the one country and there's no reason why we should prevent ourselves from at the very least evening out some of that horrible, horrible champagne glass. At the expense of individuality? Lol, no, but through providing equal opportunities. Make education better so that the best can get to university, rather than the rich. Make healthcare equal (yes, I'm against private healthcare obviously) so that the poor aren't dying while the rich spent frivilous amounts of money on optometry. Extend public transport way out to Western Sydney and lower tolls depending on how far out people live. There's no reason why those in Campbelltown should have to spend more money getting to their jobs than those in Vaucluse, none at all (and I'm aware that if you compare the M5 to the cross city tunnel, Campbelltown is cheaper [negating petrol]. A step in the right direction). We're all working for the one economy, so why tax those who live in outer Sydney for reasons probably related to their fiduciary well being? Hmm?

The ‘proof’ is the lack of an accurate price, without this, all else is less efficient. The government monopoly doesn’t have to trade, and hence the optimal quantities of resources won’t be being used, wastage happens. On top of this, the government incentive to improve service quality is not as strong as a private business’s incentive. For a government, poor quality is invariably tolerated, but for a private firm, poor quality could spell going out of business.

Increase government accountability. Beauracracy and a bit of inconvinience are no reason to (I'm sounding like a broken record) disadvantage the poor...moreso

 

[volition]

Well, in theory, yes. But of course, that's really not practical, at this time anyway. At the very least, what I do endorse is the idea that those who are rich should be taxed to provide welfare for the poor. Those who are extremely rich should be taxed extreme levels, those who are kinda well off (like I'm guessing you are) should pay moderate taxes, in the same proportion to people like me. For instance, those on an income of $1 billion per year should be taxed a higher percentage than those on an income of $100,000 per year, and from about $60,000 - $40,000 should be taxed roughly the same proportion of their wage, depending on circumstance of course (family, welfare, deductions, socio-economic impact blah blah), and lastly, those on less than $30,000 or so, once again depending on the context of their income, should be taxed considerably less than those on higher incomes. Why? To once more provide a level playing field. Of course, that's not to say I support the traditional communist stereotype of everyone living an an identical house, driving the same identical car. Oh my no, there's got to be variety. What I do propose, is that the money that comes from tax at least provides adequate and similar welfare, for a start. Allow education, healthcare, jobs, transport, everything to be allocated equally to everyone. Subsidise the lives of those who live in Western NSW on a farm, and tax the lives of those who live in Sydney. By no means to I propose levelling everyone out to an equal income. Those who make $100,000+ per year do so probably because they studied hard to get where they are. Give those who deserve to be there a bit of an incentive so the best people keep going there, but at least level out that champagne glass. What's that saying? To each according to his need, from each according to his ability? I subscribe to that view in essence, although mostly through welfare schemes, incentives (making the most needed jobs the most well paid) and not to such an extreme degree.

I was actually asking you what reason you have for supporting ‘equal education’, but NOT ‘equal cars’ or whatever. I couldn’t really glean much out of your paragraph here, other than ‘there’s got to be variety’. Would you mind elaborating on why you think equal education is so much more important than equal cars and houses?

Lol, where would you prefer it go? Into another Mercedes-Benz? Perhaps another veranda overlooking your mansion at Cremorne? You, as someone who I'm guessing comes from a priviliged family and so on probably don't like the idea. I, as someone who came from a middle class family on the outskirts of Sydney (two cars in the garage, mortgage, secure job) think it's a great idea.

There’s no need to go into what my/your personal situations are, they’re irrelevant to the argument of what is right and wrong.

I’d feel the same way about private property rights whether I led the privileged life OR had no money. This is about everybody’s economic freedom, not just the freedom of the rich. If taxes are reduced, then they would be reduced across the board. Which means the poorer people would also have more choice over where their money goes, and it means more to them than it does to the rich, who have more of it. So it doesn’t have to go into a new Mercedes-Benz, it might be something as simple as being able to go to Macca’s for a meal. The point is they get more choice now, and their rights aren’t being trampled on as much.

Make education better so that the best can get to university, rather than the rich.

Well I can’t guarantee you that the best will go to university, but I could guarantee you that the market appreciates those with true talents, because ultimately employers value green more than they value white, black or yellow. Markets never discriminate irrationally over the long run, people who are smart/talented will prosper and it’s actually free markets that best allow them to do this, rather than having to be restrained and constricted by copping income taxation.

Increase government accountability. Beauracracy and a bit of inconvinience are no reason to (I'm sounding like a broken record) disadvantage the poor...moreso

Do you really think this hasn’t been tried? The problem is inherent to the system! Each particular minister/department continually tries to expand their department and get more public funding. Failure is invariably tolerated and failure here means everybody’s money is wasted, not like in a private business where failure means only those who invested in it lose money. We ALL pay tax!

And you didn’t respond to what I said first about it too. First and foremost, you need an exchange to determine value, and from THAT you can go about organising things. This is a problem because the government monopoly doesn’t have to trade! It's actually very important economically, that prices are correct.

 

[aussiechica7]

I'd personally think, alike the medicine course, there should be a UMAT equivalent exam for future teaching candidates, examining their ability to communicate to students. The communication skills of the candidate needs to be examined critically. They can not just be able to speak fluently, but be able to engage the students. My principal can come up with the most gem studded speeches during assemblies, but noone will ever listen to them attentively.

nice one, i agree with that

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Hey volition, if taxation is against our will, why does the population continually call for increased funding (ie. our taxes) to education?

Try running what you're saying as a state election platform and you'd lose in a landslide.