Private vs Public.... Everything (1 Viewer)

[premer]

We live in a society that has branded its people multicultural, that have lived through wars and that have seen just how stupid you can be while running the most powerful country in the world [Bush]. But one aspect of our society that has never been overcome is the debate that always continues between Public and Private. That is schools, hospitals, banks, companies, airlines, industires and even social clubs. There are two things that trouble me about this debate, the 'poor' always seem to lose, and they always seem to blame the people lucky enough to utilise these 'private' resources.
I go to a private school and enjoy the benifits of private healthcare, yet i am not a bad person. My parents have simply decided that being able to choose, they do choose private, simply because the resources and facilities are a lot better. The reality is that the healthcare and educational systems both have major problems, yet it is not the fault of those who utilise them. We pay tax, we also pay higher rates to be in the privates communities, and we should not come under fire for this.
This does not make me a snob, nor does it make me 'different', but i am one of many who are branded different because I do attend a private school.

I want to know the views of both sides, those who agree with my pledge to stop this somewhat discriminating view, and those who think i am arguing a onesided fight, and take the side of those who brand me different.



Good Night Irene.............

 

[_dhj_]

The idea of public education is that bar merit (i.e. selective schools), everyone has equal educational opportunity regardless of their means. The choice made by many to select private schools (even if they aren't "wealthy" people) undermines this notion of equal opportunity.

 

[davin]

yeah, along some of what dhj said, i think there's a big question about how do you ensure equal opportunity, and at what point do you begin to limit people again. personally, i favour allowing everyone to have equal opportunity, but it has to be kept in mind that equal opportunity doesn't mean you have to make it seem like everyone has equal capability in all catagories.

 

[premer]

I am sorry to disagree, but this notion of equality is not undermined by private education nor private anything. This relatively naive argument has to take into account that equality Never works, and that we as a society are never satisfied. Realistically we should take advantage of what we can.



Darwins theory of evolution.

 

[davin]

what do you mean by "this notion of equality"? equality of what, exactly?

 

[*Minka*]

If parents have the means to send their children to a private school and chose to do so, that is their decision and they have the right to make it. The fact that free education is provided for those who can not afford private shows equality to me - ensuring all are educated regardless of system.

 

[_dhj_]

I am sorry to disagree, but this notion of equality is not undermined by private education nor private anything. This relatively naive argument has to take into account that equality Never works, and that we as a society are never satisfied. Realistically we should take advantage of what we can.

The fact that private schools get government funding is ridiculous. Private schools are businesses. They should receive no more benefit than any coaching college. In fact the only difference between a private school and a coaching college is that the private school's cirriculum is accepted as a secondary qualification, so if anything, they should cough up heavy license fees to the government.

Darwins theory of evolution.

Wtf do you mean by this? Poor people have shit genes and so their kids don't deserve equal opportunity?

 

[Valeu]

Your financial ability to choose should not impede the ability of someone without that same ability to recieve a good standard of education, or recieve a good standard of health care.

If funds are badly needed in some under-resourced, under-staffed public schools then it does not make sense to further fund elite private schools with no such resource deficiency. In this sense I agree with Latham's plan to divert funding away from elite private schools to under-funded schools, private or public, on the basis of need.

The quality of services offered by Medicare should not be affected by government subsidies for private health funds or things like the 30% rebate.

That's basically my position.

 

[luscious-llama]

Off a tangent just a bit
I wish they would privatise shitty rail

 

[The Brucemaster]

Private: [SIZE=-1]Any activities not conducted or supported by the Government.[/SIZE]
www.mft.govt.nz/foreign/antarctica/nongovvisits/glossary.html

The word private should mean just that. If an educational insitution wants to call itself private then fine, be private, but if i were running the government you could kiss your funding goodbye. I would at least like to see government funding reflect the candidature of private vs. public students i.e 30% private and 70% public (approximately).
As to your concerns about Joey's and Kings doing poorly in the HSC might i suggest that this is because private education tends to take a lot of shortcuts and also seems, as far as my experience can tell, to think that throwing money at something will make it better. I cant be bothered elaborating here and now but you seem to thin that swearing at someone constitutes an argument so im already above average.

 

[loquasagacious]

If private schools get no government funding then taxpayers who send their children their should pay less tax - otherwise they are essentially paying for an education twice; a public one they don't use and a private one.

 

[spell check]

that defeats the purpose of tax in the first place though

contributing to the benefit of others rather than yourself

if some people choose to send their children to a private school why should they not have to contribute to public school funding for the benefit of people who can't afford private

 

[loquasagacious]

User Pays. Tax and welfare are both inappropriate interventions in the market and impose inefficiencies, hence they should be minimised.

Because we shouldnt give without recieving or recieve without giving.

There would be a considerable disincentive to go private in your system which would be an inefficient intervention in the market.

 

[The Brucemaster]

If private schools get no government funding then taxpayers who send their children their should pay less tax - otherwise they are essentially paying for an education twice; a public one they don't use and a private one.

Yeah i see what you mean actually. Ill retract my no funding statement then and go with funding reflecting candidature.
I just fail to see the logic in allocating 70% (approximately) of your education spending on private schools which account for only 30% of students.

 

[banco55]

They should just have a voucher program and shatter the teachers unions into a thousand pieces. Would be a great day for education in this country.

 

[Xayma]

If private schools get no government funding then taxpayers who send their children their should pay less tax - otherwise they are essentially paying for an education twice; a public one they don't use and a private one.

So since I will not have kids in life, I should not have to pay any money towards public education?

 

[*Minka*]

that defeats the purpose of tax in the first place though

contributing to the benefit of others rather than yourself

if some people choose to send their children to a private school why should they not have to contribute to public school funding for the benefit of people who can't afford private

Because my parents sending me and surviving siblings to a private school, they released the government from having to pay for our educations.

 

[Iron]

Winston Churchill entered a men's washroom in the House of Commons one day and, observing Labor leader Clement Attlee standing before the urinal, took up his stance at the opposite end of the room. "Feeling stand-offish today, are we, Winston?" Attlee chirped. "That's right," Churchill replied. "Every time you see something big, you want to nationalize it."

 

[Snaykew]

First you need to see how much exactly is spent on private and public education. This means both federal funding and funding given by the states. Add em up, and see if they seem right. I'm opposed to the majority of taxpayers having to pay for a god damn resort in a private school instead of paying more on the public school their kids go to. (Note: Exaggeration is used, for those unaware)

 

[loquasagacious]

So since I will not have kids in life, I should not have to pay any money towards public education?

Correct.