freediver wrote on May 19
th, 2024 at 7:04pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on May 19
th, 2024 at 6:52pm:
freediver wrote on May 19
th, 2024 at 6:41pm:
Quote:the state's responsibility is to provide the best education for all; any 'special' education requirements (mostly ideology) beyond that should be a matter for the private sector alone.
That is not an explanation. That is you taking twice as long to say the same thing.
Priceless! (laughter is the best medicine
)
What part of
"the state's responsibility is to provide the best education for all" don't you understand?
1) It is illogical. Banning payments to private schools does not guarantee this.
Ah - progress: so an assertion that
"the state's responsibility is to provide the best (possible) education for all"
is "illogical", when ONLY the state can guarantee education for all, since not everyone can afford private education.
And to hand responsibility for education over to private instutions with their own axe to grind implies students being caught up in a competition between conflicting ideologies.
But let's examine your "logic" which claims my point about universal public education is "illogical":
FD:
Banning payments to private schools does not guarantee this
Does not guarantee what, exactly? Quality education? That's up to the state
resourcing teachers and schools properly (same as private schools are resourced with the benefit of public AND private funds, allowing then to build flash swimming pools while public schools are under-resourced. ...).
By definition, the state CAN guarantee quality education for everyone regardless of a student's wealth - indeed there is no private education at all in Finland, a country which ranks among the highest in educational outcomes in the world.
Quote:2) It does not actually mean anything. It is vague enough to be interpreted any way you want. You could say the same thig in support of private school funding.
Examined - and your errors exposed above.