NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that we just need public schools, and I think we have to ban private schools who have commercials interests. It's important that everyone has the same change to get an good eduaction, and we can get that if all goes in the public schools.

I think that we just need public schools, and I think we have to ban private schools who have commercials interests. It's important that everyone has the same change to get an good eduaction, and we can get that if all goes in the public schools.

I think that this is a bad idea. This will not mean that everyone will have the chance to have a good education. This will mean that everyone will have the chance to have state propaganda rammed down their throats.

People who have the means to do so should be able to provide a great education for their kids as opposed to just a "good" one. Those who have the time to do so should be able to home school their kids.

The whole reason that private schools exist is because they meet needs that public education can't. If people have a desire for less shitty schools and can pay for them, it is rather arrogant to assume that you have some sort of "right" to prevent them from doing so.

--P.

It's no less arrogant to assume that your child deserves a better education than anyone else simply because you're richer.

That said, this goes somewhat beyond national sovereignty and is not an issue suitable for the UN.

Private schools that are better then public schools let us see were our weaknesses lie and show us how to fix them. In some places they can be an unfair advantage but not everywhere so I believe this issue is unfit to be addressed by the UN.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

It's no less arrogant to assume that your child deserves a better education than anyone else simply because you're richer.


I have not claimed that the children of the wealthy "deserve" a better education. All I am saying is that if their parents are willing to pony up the cash, it is not right for the government to prevent them from doing so.

This is a question of freedom of choice. I will concede that the wealthy have more options open to them, but this is true in nearly every aspect of society.

--P.

Private enterprise is forbidden.

This is a question of freedom of choice. I will concede that the wealthy have more options open to them, but this is true in nearly every aspect of society.

So it's freedom of choice, but only if you're rich?

We don't think the purpose of education is the gratification of the parent. It's the development of the child, for the child's sake and (as a secondary effect) for society's. Children deserve the education that will benefit them most, regardless of how rich their parents happen to be.

A wealthy child brought up in a wealthy private school will be conditioned to isolate himself, in his habits, his opinions, his associations, from those who aren't wealthy. They ingrain the idea of a stratified society where your parents' bankroll matters more than your personal merit. We don't feel that accident of birth should consign you to a lower position in life - or else to bust your balls struggling to get a position that others get handed to them on a plate.

So you reckon I've been 'consigned to a lower position in life' because I don't have the money to go to a private school?

My eldest brother - who went to a state school - is doing well for himself. I'm headed for good GCSEs and my three brothers got them (though one went to the local grammar). I'm not disadvantaged to rich kids at all. My school is almost on a par with the local privates.

I have a friend who was bullied badly at my school and she moved to one of the local private schools. She has been so much happier there mostly due to small class sizes.

Private schools focus on students with specific and special needs; a proposal on this idea will not be supported by our country and we will campaign against it completely.

So you reckon I've been 'consigned to a lower position in life' because I don't have the money to go to a private school?
No - but I reckon it means you have to work harder for the same thing.

Your claim that good state schools can do as well as private ones is precisely what I'm advocating. Getting rid of private schools doesn't mean an overall decrease in education quality if state schools are properly run and funded.

Banning private schools is impossible....

First of all, this would include schools run by religious organizations, and submission of this resolution would be a violation of Article 3 of the rights and duties of UN Nations.

Secondly, there is nothing preventing individual states from immplimenting systems to make it easier for lower-income children to attent private schools(<AHEM>Voucher programs<AHEM>)

Thirdly, this assumes that the state has a better understanding of an individual child's educational needs then the parents.

Fouthly, this seeks to make a UN resolution banning certain private enterprises in certain nations, which is a violation of our right as a nation, to have and operate the economic model we see fit, and is also against Article 3 of the Rights and Duties of UN Nations.

Republic of Tekania has this to stay, we will endeavour to provide our public school system with the best educational standards we can provide... However, we also recognize that it is impossible for a socialized generalized public school systems to answer the specific educational needs of each and every child. Therefore, while we believe it necessary for children to get a good education, we also recognize the *FACT* that the state is incapable of defining what specifically is a good education in EVERY circumstance. Therefore, we will vote against this proposal.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Okay. Article 3 explicitly only applies when there's no international law covering the issue, and so has no force against any UN resolution whatsoever.

However, we also recognize that it is impossible for a socialized generalized public school systems to answer the specific educational needs of each and every child.
And in what magical way does it differ from a private-school system? State schools can be specialised as well, you know.

We reiterate that this is not a proposal suitable for UN legislation, however.

I think we should ban private school unless they are run by the government. Then we can select our future leaders by practically moalding their minds with the same political mombo jombo that the current government uses, then we can evade rebellions and general unhappiness. Thats what we should do for that keeps our countries ours!!!!Nothing will change for many years to come

I think that we just need public schools, and I think we have to ban private schools who have commercials interests. It's important that everyone has the same change to get an good eduaction, and we can get that if all goes in the public schools.

I think we need MORE private schools and smart school management will find sponsorship; smart sponsors will ensure that schools are teaching kids things that are usefull in their professional life. Education is an investment in tomorrow and companies should take that very serious. There is nothing wrong with companies participating in the decisions of what education should be about.
It is a GOOD thing, if people realise very thouroughly that education is NOT FREE and that the investment should be worth our while.
I say: Ban PUBLIC schools and wake up.

I think we should ban private school unless they are run by the government. Then we can select our future leaders by practically moalding their minds with the same political mombo jombo that the current government uses, then we can evade rebellions and general unhappiness. Thats what we should do for that keeps our countries ours!!!!Nothing will change for many years to come

*emphasis mine

The concept behind a private school IS that it's not run by governement. So this post makes absolutely no sense.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

I think all private-schools should be banned, and governments need to spend WAY MORE money on education in public schools. Also I personally believe that ALL levels of education should be free, including college. Cuba has actually done this and they have the BEST public education and public health system in the world.

I think all private-schools should be banned, and governments need to spend WAY MORE money on education in public schools. Also I personally believe that ALL levels of education should be free, including college. Cuba has actually done this and they have the BEST public education and public health system in the world.


There is no such thing as a FREE education, and no one has FREE education at any level.... The funding is coming from somewhere, the only difference is that one is payed by government decided tax funds, the other is payed directly by the interested party. In the Republic of Tekania, where freedom to obtain service is granted to the individual's choice, we tax our people very lightly (2% at present) so the people have the choice to invest and utilize almost all of their money as they see fit, not as the others do.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

I think that we just need public schools, and I think we have to ban private schools who have commercials interests. It's important that everyone has the same change to get an good eduaction, and we can get that if all goes in the public schools.

Translation: I think we should ban private schools because they threaten my government monopoly on the minds of my people. It's important to brainwash all the children in my country so that my corrupt and hollow government can maintain power, and we can do that much easier if parents have no say in thier children's education and all children are bussed to our public school.

Universal state schools don't mean parents have no say in their child's education. It just means they have no say in their child's education by virtue of wealth.

There's nothing contradictory about a diverse, open and free state-run system that allows choice and independence for both educators and parents.

Education is a commodity, to be purchased with the funds available to them. Shaving off a percent of the net tax income and using that percent to pay for the education for all of a nation's citizens adds up to a bit of inefficiency on the part of the individual, as an individual would only receive a small return on his/her investment into the education system. Because all the money is spent across the nation, it is more difficult to adequately maintain such a system as to make it effective for all parties involved.

On the other hand, private schools worry only for themselves. True, the tuition is greater (because you don't have a couple hundred million people paying for it), but, as with any commodity, you get what you pay for. You pay for more, you get more. Trying to eliminate competition within the realm of education, forcing people to go to inadequately funded public schools, is a fallacy I thought most people were incapable of.

Wealth represents the trade of a person's labour; would you tell the factory worker that he should not be able to buy his Sunday ham because not everybody can afford ham, and he certainly hasn't earned it "by virtue of wealth?" If wealth is not a virtue that should be recognized in an economic system, I really have to question what on earth a virtuous economic value may be.

If you're a member of the UN, education is not a commodity; it's a right. It's not an optional luxury like a ham.

Your economic grasp of state-sector facilities is laughable. According to your model, every company above a certain size would be inefficient.

Anyway, who's 'paying for more and getting more'? The kids? Yep, I know I had a few thousand quid lying around at the age of five. As we pointed out: the purpose of education is not the gratification of the parent. Your value-product analogy only has a chance in hell of working if you're paying for your education yourself, which nobody who goes to private schools does.

There's nothing contradictory about a diverse, open and free state-run system that allows choice and independence for both educators and parents.



1. "FREE"... It's not free... already established, the people pay for it in taxes....

2. "CHOICE".... What choice? To attent the mandated "state-run" system? They don't appear to have another choice.

3. "INDEPENDENCE".... See point 2 above.


Providing only one option, means that "choice" and "independence" have been removed.

For their to be choice and independence, there has to be options available, including the option to choose another institution.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

If you're a member of the UN, education is not a commodity; it's a right. It's not an optional luxury like a ham.

Your economic grasp of state-sector facilities is laughable. According to your model, every company above a certain size would be inefficient.

Anyway, who's 'paying for more and getting more'? The kids? Yep, I know I had a few thousand quid lying around at the age of five. As we pointed out: the purpose of education is not the gratification of the parent. Your value-product analogy only has a chance in hell of working if you're paying for your education yourself, which nobody who goes to private schools does.

Education is a right, so you say, to every individual. Why, then, is it a fallacy to send your children to a private institution? The establishment of a perochial elementary school doesn't prevent anybody from going to the public school system (assuming one already exists). Judging by your choice of currency, you're a Britanner, and are therefore unfamiliar with the abysmal public school system that the United States offers its young. I can't presume that the school systems in the UK is much better off, but I do know that the Chicago Public School system is very inefficient, and that's education offered on a citywide level.

Also, how can you claim that state facilities can be both expansive and efficient? I may be tainted by what I've experienced on both the federal and state level of governance, but I've yet to see one government service offered that's acceptably efficient. But there's a fundamental difference between "international conglomeracy" and "state-run facilities." The company seeks to make profit, and as long as they're capable of securing even accounting profit, they can expand their services. A state-run institution has no way of making profits... the best they can do is to balance the budget so they spend every cent alloted to them by the government. The difficulty there is greater, as there's no way to secure significant additional funds outside of hoping and praying that the funds committee will throw you a bone. Becoming more efficient in teaching, unlike in manufacturing or distribution, will not earn you greater profit, as the education institutions don't get paid based on how effective their teaching methods are.

And I'm not sure what you're looking for out of me with your "children don't pay for their education" comment. Even if they went to public schools, they wouldn't anyway, which is exactly what the author of this thread intends. But the parents pay the extra money as a way to invest into their child's future... there's nothing about self-gratification in sending a child to a private school, to ensure that they will receive a quality education at the hands of teachers who work harder because they're getting paid more, and who are more likely to be good teachers because, since they will be paid more, the selection process for teachers is more thorough. That's an investment into their own family, into their child's future. After all, if it were only a case of snooty families trying to save their children from the "drudge of society," you wouldn't see single parents working two jobs so they can send their children to private schools, instead of taking the easy road and leaving them in the hands of the state.

Gesamtkuntswerk,

Someone who can see reason on this issue.

As for others....

Why not, rather then banning private schools (an affront to any capitalist nation's rights to be CAPITALISTS )... mandate school voucher programs in all nations with private school systems. This would be fair and equitable, and not violate our rights to practice our economic model.

the whole "by virtue of wealth" is no reason to remove it...

A rich family could pay for their kids education in the highest class best private school on the planet.... some other family might not have had those same resources and had to send their child through a public school.
Now, while, yes, child 1 might have had a better education, is this going to necessarily determine that child 2 could not become as successful as child 1 because of it? Sure, he would have to work harder then the other to get up there, but there is nothing stopping them from taking that initiative to try harder.... heck more initiative more drive to pass the other. in success.

What I do not like about socialism, is that it seeks to punish those with the most initiative and drive, and reward those who are lazy. I personally grew up in a lowerclass household, but I'll tell you this much, neither my parents, nor I are presently in the "lower-class." It also seeks to increase "equality" at the expense of individual freedom, once socialism is taken to it's absolute ends, no one longer is free.