mozzaok wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 2:54pm:


Mozz, that is exactly the point I was making and I will take it further. If all kids were looking at the same educational system then the well to do would make damn sure that that system was as good as it possibly could be.

Of course those from the lesser privileged backgrounds need to take their own educations more seriously as well. With Governments and courts cracking down on children and adults that want to sabotage our places of learning.

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 7:12pm:


"If everything is equal, you have Socialism" FD I can't say that that is the most damning criticism of Socialism I have ever heard, in fact it sounds positively glowing.

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 7:12pm:


FD, while what you say here IS true, it is far from the whole truth or even an acceptable truth...when you say this I have definite visions of the black fella saying to his "born to rule overlord" yes massa or yes sahib.

I'm sure I would "benefit" from my mum taking my wage and doling out an allowance for me but the benefit would be according to her POV not mine.

ALL in a democratic wealthy society should have provided free the highest level of equal education to make them good and accountable citizens. Death to the "Old School Tie" BS that exists alive and well out there.

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 7:12pm:


What is too much cost when it comes to educating ALL children? The higher the level of education the better our foundation for our nation and our future.

I have no problem about lowering the standard of private schools if it means removing governemnt funding from private schools. It is one of the first and best places to attack elitism.

Increasing funding for schools in the real world doesn't have the effect that it does in Sim City. It may do some positive things, but ultimately the willingness (and dilligence) and ability of the child ultimately puts a limit on how much "academic success" you can squeeze out of him. There's no getting around it. When it comes to academic success, nothing matters more than these things put together. I really wouldn't be surprised that children in private schools do better than children in public schools not because of the increased perceived "quality" of education in private schools, but because the kind of children who are going to private schools in the first place are harder working and more intelligent in general.

In the case against exuberant facilities and funding to improve educational performance in schools, here's a story from the United States. It all began when a particularly low performing school district in Kansas City was ordered by a judge in the late 1980s to improve its test and grade averages. The judge would not settle simply for repairing and refurbishing the existing schools; he ordered them to be bulldozed to the ground and new facilities to be put up in their place. The result? Air conditioned classrooms, a 2000 foot planetarium, a twenty five acre farm, a model U.N general assembly that was wired for simultaneous interaction in various foreign languages, radio and television studios and a temperature controlled art gallery. The main high school in the district had one computer for every three pupils (this was in 1993), a $5 million dollar swimming pool, a fencing course taught by the head coach of the Soviet Olympic fencing team, and a range of academic courses described by one commentator as "mind boggling" (perhaps approaching the variety you would encounter at a major university). All of it cost 1.3 billion dollars more than the typical school budget; 36,000 a year for each of the school district's students.


The results? The dropout rate increased every year from 1987 and 1993, and scores on standardized academic achievement tests actually decreased. The Economist finally pointed out:

"Almost 200 econometric studies have come to the same conclusion that student's performance is unrelated to the quality of school they attend. But such studies are too boringly statistical to influence political opinion, as witness the recurrent cry for more spending on public schools."

The point is obviously lost on Liberals; the quality of your education and your school depends mostly on yourself and the quality of the students that go to your school. If students really want to learn they will, even if they *gasp* don't have access to $2000 laptops and Olympic fencing coaches

Education is one of those issues that politicians love because it means they can go mad pressing the spending button without arousing much outrage. Everybody buys into the idea that education is god itself so opposing more money for it is almost like a heretical preist in the Aztec empire opposing more human sacrifice for Quetzalcoatl.

I think the problem arises when some fundamentalists want to teach kids Young Earth Creationism - that the Earth is 7000 years old, that dinosaurs and humans lived together, that bananas (and everything else) were designed by God from scratch (no evolutionary principles came into play), and that DNA wasn't invented in prehistoric times among other things.

If it came down to a Deist position on creation together with evolution, most scientists wouldn't bat an eyelid. That's a non issue.

If it came down to the moderate Catholic or Anglican acceptance of evolutionary theory as it is taught, again there would be no problem.

Again - evolution is about what happens after you have life. It is separate from abiogenesis, which is the theory that life arose spontaneously.

Deism and abiogenesis are compatible world views.

Quote:


Just on that subject, which is off the topic of the main thread. I've thought about the subject a fair bit, and it comes down to return on investment every time. Currently the private schools are receiving the same funding as the public schools, but the parents are paying more on top of that for a better education.

I really don't have a problem with that. If we withdrew funds, less parents would be able to afford the unsubsidized private education, which would increase the burden on the public system and thus result in a lower quality of education overall. If our objective is for the best level of education for the most people, then we should continue to subsidize private schools at the current level, or at a level consistent with the best ROI for society. The investment is money, and the return is raising the national standard of education.  

If you focus on the overall objective rather than focusing on how some people are gaining an advantage due to having rich parents (in other words remove the emotive issue), you see it from a whole new perspective.    

Jaisignature, your point is a good one. If there is any reason to send your children to a private rather than a public school (performance ain't it) it's to keep your kids away from the dregs you find in public schools.

Quote:


It's funny that private schools are essentially socialist as well.
A freind of mine that I grew up with who was obviously not as smart as me in many areas (hard to imagine hey?) went to a private school and had a very good headstart financially speaking.

As far as the business doctrine goes, he ddin't quite understand a few fundamentals and eventually lost most of his wealth and the wealth of his parents too.

The doctrine that I was brought up with was very different, and I so wish that I had been privvy to this confidence way of wealth.

I aquired some wealth, and I would not let it be stolen by the confidence people. I was schooled with a defensive attitude which has served me well when applied correctly. However, it's by no means a way of riches.
There is a massive barrier to be broken if you want to enter the world of the controllers. And in the end, they ain't that smart or special, they've just been brought up to think that they are and it is this socialist certainty which is very hard to break.i

Quote:


Did you just make that up?