School funding (2 Viewers)

[beyond the arc]

Anyone who chooses not to attend these free schools provided by the government should have to pay their own way. The government provides public schools so that people can be educated. The private schools aren't part of their system, and are not their responsibility. Private schools are institutions for people who don't want to attend government schools, therefore they shouldn't recieve government funding.

agree with what toodulu said. everyone has a choice to go public or private and everyone has the right to an education. if everyone is making a fuss about school funding then what about private and public health insurance. It's exactly the same thing. The government funds both and private you have to pay more, but no one complains about the funding going to health insurance. It's exactly the same scenario. Everyone has a right to both, everyone is tax payers and therefore government funding should be going to both, not only restricted to public. People have a choice to go public or private.

 

[Generator]

The problem with the notion of choice is that greater funding levels are being directed towards non-government schools rather than to the education system in general due to the fact that greater student numbers are entering the non-government sector each year. Should the system not take the contribution of fees into account when distributing the government's (both federal and state) funding? Also, is there any real choice when one system is being increasingly viewed as being of a lower standard in comparison to the others despite the fact that many independent and systemic schools are just not viable?


It is an issue that has been done to death on these boards.

 

[abdooooo!!!]

its stupid to fund schools based on the richness of kids... its should be based on the smartness of the kids. schools like ruse and syd girls should get the most money as they are our most valuable intellectual capitals in this country.

invest in the good ones is the only logical choice for a country.

 

[Constip8edSkunk]

logic has nothing to do with the governance of a country, power and $$$ does.

 

[abdooooo!!!]

Originally posted by Constip8edSkunk
logic has nothing to do with the governance of a country, power and $$$ does.

logics provides money, and hence power. but how politics works is another thing

a system should be developed where maximum funding goes to the best students. and maximum tax should be on the labor force and workers, and reduce as much capital gains tax as possible. this should catapult a country like australia to become the next roman empire within the next century or two.

the notion of equility and morality only holds the nation back from the ultimate goal, maximum economic growth and maximum happiness for the greatest amount of people. utilitarianism must be adopted.

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by abdooooo!!!
invest in the good ones is the only logical choice for a country.

Except not all the smart peeps go to smart schools. I know plenty of people who go to the only school in Albury which made the top 120 and they aren't exactly the sharpest knives around.

 

[Toodulu]

errrrm wtf
shouldn't funding go to the least previleged students if it was to be based on skills

 

[Xayma]

Depends how you want to advance, if you want to advance on average then yes it should go to the less able students, however, if you want to have the major Australian talent advance it should go to those who have skill.

 

[Constip8edSkunk]

logic provides money and power in the long term not necessarily in the short term.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Originally posted by abdooooo!!!

maximum tax should be on the labor force and workers, and reduce as much capital gains tax as possible. this should catapult a country like australia to become the next roman empire within the next century or two.

the notion of equility and morality only holds the nation back from the ultimate goal, maximum economic growth and maximum happiness for the greatest amount of people. utilitarianism must be adopted.

From what I can gather, you intend for the rich to become richer, and the poor pooer, in other words a return to the classed society. How will that advance Australia. People seem to forget that the government is already making laborous jobs hard enough, think of the deregulation of farming industries. And this causes farms to close. So if we follow your line of thinking few we eradicate all labor jobs such as farming, and therefore become totally dependant on exports from third world countries who we expolit.
What happens then if they decide the're no longer going to export to us, or war breaks out. What the hell are we gonna eat, our money.
Think realism before you think utilitarianism

 

[Enlightened_One]

The debate has shifted completely now, someone should open a new thread on this idea.

 

[MoNNiE]

Originally posted by Asquithian
oo ud know mrs lees

whois mrs lees?!!

 

[abdooooo!!!]

Originally posted by Xayma
Except not all the smart peeps go to smart schools. I know plenty of people who go to the only school in Albury which made the top 120 and they aren't exactly the sharpest knives around.

true. but if a system is developed where by schools with the heighest academic record gets the most funding then schools will steal all the smart students at all cost.

in some time we will have nearly all the smart students in schools with the most money.

schools and universities already do this to some extend, but should be done more in my mind.

rewards should go to those who wants to learn... this works vice versa to produce more talented student hence greatly increase a countries intellictual capitals. its capitalism!!!

Originally posted by Constip8edSkunk
logic provides money and power in the long term not necessarily in the short term.

there is always opportunity costs... nothing is free.

somehow society value what we have now more than any other options... only a shift away from this view can produce better results in terms of economics.

Originally posted by Enlightened_One
From what I can gather, you intend for the rich to become richer, and the poor pooer, in other words a return to the classed society. How will that advance Australia. People seem to forget that the government is already making laborous jobs hard enough, think of the deregulation of farming industries. And this causes farms to close. So if we follow your line of thinking few we eradicate all labor jobs such as farming, and therefore become totally dependant on exports from third world countries who we expolit.
What happens then if they decide the're no longer going to export to us, or war breaks out. What the hell are we gonna eat, our money.
Think realism before you think utilitarianism

i don't think your point is valid at all. if you were to argue for morality and equility then i would accept your views.

of course a sudden change of great magnitude would produce chaos... but i don't think that would happen. most changes take place gradually... as long as policy favour that philosophy economics is bound to benefit.

think about it... some poor countries have like 90% of their labor force in farming cause they do not have the intellectual and financial capitals to build and operate farming technology. while countries like US only have like less than 1% of their population in agriculture and they still have more food too eat... infact couple of hundred times more than africans. one american farmer can operate a "machine" build by intellectuals to produce food for 1000 american. while africans find it hard to feed themselves.

forcing people gradually from the labor force to investment of finance and education is the way to build a strong economy.

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by abdooooo!!!
true. but if a system is developed where by schools with the heighest academic record gets the most funding then schools will steal all the smart students at all cost.

True but remember not everyone goes to Sydney, plenty of country folk are pretty smart and wouldnt be able to make it.

 

[Iunny]

If you fund the smartest kids in the state that isn't giving the other kids a chance, not to mention its not fair, it won't advance Australia's competitiveness either.

Think: If you're only sharpening the smartest people, the smartest people are more than likely move to other places for better benefits once they start working and i'm sure they would be in high demand. If most of the newer skilled and smart generation leaves Aust, only the dumb ones are left. THat doesn't reallly help Australia now does it?

Funding should go to both private and public. It really depends on how you want to educate your kids. if you want your kids subjected to a more than likely better disciplined environment, then send your kids to private schools, if not, send them to a public school. There are benefits in both private/public, I don't see why all the funding has to go to public.

Plus, it is a choice whether you want to send your kids to private/public. One of the kids in my grade, her parents, the mum has 3 jobs and her dad has 2 different jobs to fund her to attend a private school. If you're willing to sacrifice for your kids, then it does become a choice. I don't see why the government shouldn't be supporting freedom of choice!

 

[abdooooo!!!]

Originally posted by Iunny
If you fund the smartest kids in the state that isn't giving the other kids a chance, not to mention its not fair, it won't advance Australia's competitiveness either.

im not argueing for whether its fair or not... the idea of equility is much deaper than that.

is it fair that only smart people (those who obtain enough uai) now can get into hex courses... while those who didn't have to use all their own money? nothing is really fair... why not go for communism? i mean thats fair right... its just not that good for the economy.

australia will definately advance.

Originally posted by Iunny
Think: If you're only sharpening the smartest people, the smartest people are more than likely move to other places for better benefits once they start working and i'm sure they would be in high demand. If most of the newer skilled and smart generation leaves Aust, only the dumb ones are left. THat doesn't reallly help Australia now does it?

Funding should go to both private and public. It really depends on how you want to educate your kids. if you want your kids subjected to a more than likely better disciplined environment, then send your kids to private schools, if not, send them to a public school. There are benefits in both private/public, I don't see why all the funding has to go to public.

seriously... you gotta think more logically.

smart scientist and intellectuals will stay in australia as there are more research fundings for them, like now all the good scientist go to america for their research since those unis are 10 times richer than ours. we just can't compete if we don't concentrate our resources for the smart ones.

and also, entrepreneur and investors will stay in australia because there will be lower capital gains tax than other countries. this will produce more jobs for the intellectuals compared to other countries... and since we have more intellectuals... you know its a loop.

the only people that will want to leave australia is the normal workers who can't be bothered to get an education or don't wanna invest... and the thing is we wouldn't be needing much of them in a couple of years when we truly establish ourselves as a science and technologically advanced country with a wealth of investors. as i explained earlier think about the america compared to africa situation... which country has more farmers? which country eats more food?

edit: just to clear things up, this are proven ideas. and it will work. just get a economics book and read on basic theory of economic growth, you'll find two important influences: Technological change (smarter scientist to build and operate them), and capital accumulation (investors). the only way to get more of them is to build a policy which reward them better than now.

whats holding us back? a theory on equility of all humans...

 

[Enlightened_One]

I like all these posts on how Australia is going to advance and how the blue collar workforce is going to become redundant as we become a nation of intellectual superiors.
Two things:
All these technological advances should be welcomed, if they came for the right reason. The entire purpose of technology was to replace jobs and support the country so that noone would have to work. There is a better definition that makes more sense..
Anyway, instead of trying to head to a country where all the machines do the laborious jobs and everybody lives in luxury.
However, all that we see happening is people getting sacked, rich getting richer, and unemployment spreading. Technology has not delivered it's benefits.
The other problem is that if we become a nation dependant on others for all our materials, i.e food, then in the event of the next major war, and one is coming I think, we are buggered. If we destroy our industries we can't support ourselves, and it won't take a military force to destory us, just the loss of our imports.
Just a few quick thoughts

 

[Comrade nathan]

beyond the arc - Not everyone has the choice of private schools and public schools, there is that matter of...um money

abdooooo!!! - Funding schools on there intelligence is the most idiotic thing i have every heard.

Enlightened_One - We already have a classed society

I think the only option is to have only public education so then all young people can get the same level of education regardless of money, and money should be spent on schools by the need rather then making a school look attractive with swimming pools and fancy common rooms for students, like in some private schools.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Thankyou Comrade Nathan, I agree. It's why I started this thread, to here a sane opinion like that.
I know a classed system exists, but it doesn't affect me, or alot of people I know. It's more a city problem.
I have friends who's families pay twice (or more) the amount of tax than my families entire income. I think anyway, we don't talk about shit like that usually, it makes no difference to what we think of each other.
Point is, where I am, there's no class system despite the divergence of wealth.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Having private schools that cost's more fees, is at a first look saying htat there is a better education but will cost more.