|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
Whilst i completely agree with you and labour on this one try to remember that those parents^^ are still taxpayers to, in fact probably contribute more to taxation ( through spending admittably ) ALL schools should be given the same then let them do the rest.
Not really fair to penalise people for being successful. They already pay a higher percentage of what they earn, the school their kids go to should not get more or less funding than others. |
Private schools shouldnt receive any govt funding at all- they're a business after all. Whilst youre right when you say "They already pay a higher percentage of what they earn...Not really fair to penalise people for being successful" the flip side is that you penalise poorer children, who's parents pay taxes that subsidise elite schools that they can't afford to send their children to. I dont think thats particularly equitable.
any system that engenders a profit from education is disgusting imo. |
|
|
| Trance Nutter |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Private schools shouldnt receive any govt funding at all- they're a business after all. Whilst youre right when you say "They already pay a higher percentage of what they earn...Not really fair to penalise people for being successful" the flip side is that you penalise poorer children, who's parents pay taxes that subsidise elite schools that they can't afford to send their children to. I dont think thats particularly equitable. |
Hold on, what about the flip side of your example?
Parents who send their kids to private schools are also tax payers, why should they subsidise public education? Don't their kids have a RIGHT to be entitled to funding that their parents pay for?
When I first heard labour had a new policy to take money away from private schools (thats all I heard on a newsbreak), I thought ", this is gonna be a massive up". Although I haven't really had the time to study it, the redistibution idea they have come up with seems like a good idea. Not every private school is a Kings or Scotch, so to divert some (I wouldn't agree with all or even a major part) funding from these schools to the poorer schools seems to be a good idea.
I went to a private school, we fundraised our arses off to get a new sports centre with pool (which had originally been planned 45 years ago, yes, it took that long to raise the funds), we fundraised our arses off to get a new library, etc. Not everything is handed to these schools on a platter by the government. My parents are not rich, many are not, they made sacrifices to send me to a good school. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trance Nutter
Hold on, what about the flip side of your example?
Parents who send their kids to private schools are also tax payers, why should they subsidise public education? Don't their kids have a RIGHT to be entitled to funding that their parents pay for?
...
I went to a private school, we fundraised our arses off to get a new sports centre with pool (which had originally been planned 45 years ago, yes, it took that long to raise the funds), we fundraised our arses off to get a new library, etc. Not everything is handed to these schools on a platter by the government. My parents are not rich, many are not, they made sacrifices to send me to a good school. |
true, you make a good point, *except* that what i am highlighting is that some people dont have the luxury/choice to send their kids to private schools. those that do choose to send their children to private schools have a choice- thus they should still subsidise public education. esp since public education is a right, and private is a privilege. and no, i dont think their children have a right to those tax dollars.
if parents want access to their tax dollars, go public. if a private school exists on its own, well good for it. but we shouldnt be pouring public funding into a system that engenders a two tier (or class) education system.
and yes, you may have "fundraised" your arses off, but thats irrelevent. |
|
|
| Trance Nutter |
Every child has a right to receive government funding for education. I strongly believe that.
My point (and someone elses who I have forgotten) about the fundraising is that the government funding does not go to facilities, if it did we would have had our pool years ago. The funding goes to education (repeat - EDUCATION).
However, remember what I said, not every private school is a Kings or a Scotch. You realise that every denominational school you see is private? Do you know what the fees at many of these schools are? In many cases they are less than $1000/year, some are very low. So you think these schools should not receive any funding? How would they survive in providing low cost education without government funding? There are many (and not just denominational) schools that are very low fee schools, and it is these (from what I can gather) that will be the big beneficiaries from the Labour policy. |
|
|
| rez |
| i was in ESL for seven years. point taken |
|
|
CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
tranceaddict Forums Archive > Local Scene Info / Discussion > Australia
|
