NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so this is after I read the big thread about the private school that expelled the daughter of two lesbians, because her parents were gay. Everyone (sensible) agreed that it was wrong.

Private schools (especially religious ones) teach things which are in direct opposition to society's beliefs. They are designed for parents who do not wish their children to be exposed to the beliefs of state schools. They also (in Australia) generally can pick and choose which students they will take and which ones they won't. They are legally allowed to discriminate. They can basically teach whatever they like, and in some cases become centres for indoctrination of particular moral values.

State schools on the other hand, teach everyone, teachers can't impose their moral values on their students, and they teach state mandated curriculums in most places.

So, should private schooling be abolished?

I think Public Schooling is a very good thing. I also think that public schools get too little money (no matter which country).

But if people want private schools, let them start some. I just want to be sure that they really are private, and that they don't receive money from the state, as is currently the case in Australia. Indeed, if some of the flash palaces that qualify as private schools around here were actually to be financed by the parents, you'd see plenty of extra kids enrolling for free schooling.
Importantly though, there need to be very strict rules on how much private schools can differ in what they teach, and who they reject. Discrimination is illegal in the workplace, I don't see any reason why it should be allowed here.

That being said, I'd just add that education is not simply a service you buy, but an investment, with additional public good aspects. Denying someone education is a lot worse than denying someone an insurance policy.

Private schools should not be abolished. Perhaps they should be forced to teach a certain part of the curriculum like evolution despite their opinions on it. However, I do not think that private school is really a bad thing. If parents want to brainwash their kids but do not have the time to homeschool then private school is the next best option.

A private school should not be forced to teach evolutionary theory (in the interests of full disclosure, I believe in evolution theory, I don't call it fact simply because I didn't witness it, nor has anyone else. I, unlike militant secularists don't think that my belief in evolution theory is sufficient reason to push it down anyone's throat)

The only things a school ought to be compelled to teach are English (or your country's official language), Maths, and Civics (how one's government works, rights and responsibilities of citizens)

Abolish it. Children have the right to not get brainwashed.

The good ol' Socialist that I am tells you that public schools is the way to go. :)

Education may never be a matter of money, it should be a matter of brains. You got the brains, go to school, learn, becomes a very valuable member of your society!

In turn, you should have to give back to your society when you graduated. Doctors should have to spend their first year(s) treating people without insurance, lawyers should have to spend their first year(s) defending people who can't afford a laywer. It's win-win again, the society gets qualified workers who take the burden of treating/defending those who can't afford it, and they get practice.

Private schools only mean that those who can afford it can study, and thus you create a two class society, where those with money stay those with money, and those without remain poor, no matter how smart they are.

Your brains should be the divider in society. Not your parent's money.

On the other hand, that "no child left behind" bullspit is equally nonsense. You don't "pull them" with you, you push those who could do better down to their level. God didn't create everyone equal. There are those who're smart, and there are those who're not. And there's jobs for either group.

Kids don't get brainwashed in State schools?

Anyway, what gives a tin-pot dictator like you the right to determine how other people's children are educated?

Hey, as a once was private school student, [now at uni :)] i enjoyed having 4 soccer fields, 2 football/cricket fields 2 basketball courts, gym and more,

and im glad that i didnt have to put up with morons in the class, we had to sit an IQ and entrance exam to get into high school (and again in college) so we didnt have to put up with those noisey dumbass's, it was a small but awesome school, no its not right to expell a girl cause her parents are gay, yep the school that i went to was Catholic but i got in and my mums Buddhist and dads Prodestant (Church of England) so if that school expelled her, go find another, that was a real shame though, embarassing,

I do think that Australian private schools do offer a well rounded education, ok before i studied evolution in biology i had sign a consent form to say that i wouldnt sue because it countered my religious beliefs, but no one cared, and if someone did they were excused from that unit and studdied something else instead, and there was an optional section on the exam (u had to do one of 2 sections) it didnt bother anyone,

I Like what private education offered me, and its given me many opportunities


p.s. to the Germans, the sort of private school i went to is more like Gymnasium than any private school in Germany

There's nothing wrong with making tests a requirement to enter schools. You could do that quite fine with public schools, too.

It's quite different with private schools. They need money to run, so if you're filthy rich, you could simply buy your way in and bypass any requirements. If the school doesn't care 'bout money because it comes from the government, they can more easily enforce strict knowledge or intelligence requirements.

Hinterlutschistan, you've just given the Grand False Dilemma Of Education, that the only choice is between private schools for the rich, and state-run schools for the rest of us.

I'd say you got brainwashed by the educrats, and the teachers' unions (who have a vested interest in bloated public sector education)

You don't need to have state-run schools to have state-funded education, furthermore, the idea that the state shou8ld run all the schools is undemocratic, and abrogates a parent's right to bring up and educate their children according to their own beliefs.

The alternative is obvious. Give the state schools to communty trusts. The parents of the children will elect a board of trustees to oversee the school.

School funding should take the form of vouchers entitling a child to one term (or semester, or trimester depending on how the school year if structured) of publically funded education. These vouchers must be accepted at any school that wants state funding. If a school wants to be independent, then it can be. If a parent wants to go independent, or home-school, then they can send their vouchers to the Government, and get a cheque refunding them.

Control of education would be returned to the only people who truely want the best for the children, the parents.

Schooling would become democratic.

It's quite different with private schools. They need money to run, so if you're filthy rich, you could simply buy your way in and bypass any requirements. If the school doesn't care 'bout money because it comes from the government, they can more easily enforce strict knowledge or intelligence requirements.

Government schools probably care more about money simply because they've less of it.

As to your accusation against private schools. It is entirely unfounded. You've produced nothing to prove it. Why should anyone accept your prejudices as fact?

Kids don't get brainwashed in State schools?

There are legal issues with indoctrination in state schools.

Anyway, what gives a tin-pot dictator like you the right to determine how other people's children are educated?

"Tin-pot dictator"? What are you on about? Who said I was a dictator?

Hey, as a once was private school student, [now at uni :)] i enjoyed having 4 soccer fields, 2 football/cricket fields 2 basketball courts, gym and more.

And why should you get to enjoy that whilst the unwealthy like myself make do with our free school?

Hinterlutschistan, you've just given the Grand False Dilemma Of Education, that the only choice is between private schools for the rich, and state-run schools for the rest of us.

I'd say you got brainwashed by the educrats, and the teachers' unions (who have a vested interest in bloated public sector education)

You don't need to have state-run schools to have state-funded education, furthermore, the idea that the state shou8ld run all the schools is undemocratic, and abrogates a parent's right to bring up and educate their children according to their own beliefs.

The alternative is obvious. Give the state schools to communty trusts. The parents of the children will elect a board of trustees to oversee the school.

School funding should take the form of vouchers entitling a child to one term (or semester, or trimester depending on how the school year if structured) of publically funded education. These vouchers must be accepted at any school that wants state funding. If a school wants to be independent, then it can be. If a parent wants to go independent, or home-school, then they can send their vouchers to the Government, and get a cheque refunding them.

Control of education would be returned to the only people who truely want the best for the children, the parents.

Schooling would become democratic.



Government schools probably care more about money simply because they've less of it.

As to your accusation against private schools. It is entirely unfounded. You've produced nothing to prove it. Why should anyone accept your prejudices as fact?

Government schools care more about money 'cause they have less. That far I can agree. And that's also the problem, we should spend more money on education and making sure that they are able to do their job: Train our next generation of scientists.

The voucher system sounds good, I'd accept that as a viable option. But I insist that your brains and not your money should be the key to education.

There are legal issues with indoctrination in state schools.

No, there aren't. There are legal issues with discussing Christianity.

A lot of time in State Schools is spent cramming students with politically correct pap. I spent a term in Year 11 English looking at 'consumerism'! What has that to do with using the English language properly, or appreciating literature (which requires understanding the asthetics of language, and what a literary piece has to say about the human condition)?

The remarks of memmers of teachers' unions suggest that they define success or failure by political indoctrination. This isn't in Cuba, or North Korea, this is in Australia.

Teachers Attack Howard (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16363783-421,00.html)

They actually described the return of the Government at the last election as a failure of teachers!

"Tin-pot dictator"? What are you on about? Who said I was a dictator?

You're the one insisting the state have total control over education. Show me a dictatorship that didn't strive to achieve, or actually achieve total control over education.

And why should you get to enjoy that whilst the unwealthy like myself make do with our free school?[/QUOTE]

Ok, so this is after I read the big thread about the private school that expelled the daughter of two lesbians, because her parents were gay. Everyone (sensible) agreed that it was wrong.

Private schools (especially religious ones) teach things which are in direct opposition to society's beliefs. They are designed for parents who do not wish their children to be exposed to the beliefs of state schools. They also (in Australia) generally can pick and choose which students they will take and which ones they won't. They are legally allowed to discriminate. They can basically teach whatever they like, and in some cases become centres for indoctrination of particular moral values.

State schools on the other hand, teach everyone, teachers can't impose their moral values on their students, and they teach state mandated curriculums in most places.

So, should private schooling be abolished?

hmmm i went to a Public (private) school which was selective, but it did so quite fairly through an enterance examination, and certainly never discriminated racially, sexually (it turned into a mixed school about 3 years before i went there) or on religious grounds. it also certainly didn't teach things 'in direct opposition to societies' beliefs', but followed the national curriculum at their choice (for most subjects).
so don't paint all private schools with the same brush. i think its more "faith schools" (in the US) that are the problem, and perhaps a small proportion of 'normal' private schools

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_%28UK%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Edward_VI_School%2C_Southampton



edit: however, being a socialist i'm torn. on the one side i agree private schooling can give some an unfair advantage over others (but it can also make us lazy, but thats another matter), but i think education to be pretty much the most important aspect of life and the government. if state schools could be as 'high quality' as the best private schools, then i would be happy to abolish the latter. but in the mean time perhaps the state could pay fees for all private school students, opening them up to kids from all walks of life

You're the one insisting the state have total control over education. Show me a dictatorship that didn't strive to achieve, or actually achieve total control over education.

If you read what I said, you'ld see that my post was AGAINST brainwashing pupils, and FOR allowing them to form their own beliefs. Nothing about the state having total control over education.

Government schools care more about money 'cause they have less. That far I can agree. And that's also the problem, we should spend more money on education and making sure that they are able to do their job: Train our next generation of scientists.

The voucher system sounds good, I'd accept that as a viable option. But I insist that your brains and not your money should be the key to education.

More spending doesn't necessarily mean better education. Washington D.C. spends more on education than any other jurisdiction in the US, yet is near the bottom in terms of results (I have little doubt that the members of Congressional Committee charged with overseeing the District of Columbia educate their kids privately, but have good relations with the educational unions). D.C. can't even guarantee basic literacy for its graduates.

The exodus of children from state-run schools means that more and more money is chasing fewer and fewer pupils so more and more administrators can be employed, and unions appeased.

The voucher option guarantees that money will be no object in getting into a school (unless that school wants to be totally independent, and the owners of a school have the right to control attendance)

The voucher option would require a Board of Inspectors to see that each school receiving voucher students was up to basic standards, and was teaching core subjects (English, Maths Civics). Schools held in Community Trust could apply to the state for grants for improving the school, or could raise money independently. Such monies should be untaxed.

If you read what I said, you'ld see that my post was AGAINST brainwashing pupils, and FOR allowing them to form their own beliefs. Nothing about the state having total control over education.

You contradict yourself. You say that private schools should be abolished, then you say you're against state control of education.

Which is it?

Your post expressed no real opinion on brainwashing kids, except your own prejudice about private schools.

Well said!

No they should not be abolished. They are private and you are not forced to go. It is voluntary and if you do not fit the structure of the school why are you going there in the first place?

Couple of things. Your statement "Private schools (especially religious ones) teach things which are in direct opposition to society's beliefs." how can that be possible when only 13% of the worlds population could be considered non religious. I took that from David Barrett et al, "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," Oxford University Press, (2001). Christians 33%, Muslims 19.6%, Hindus 13.4% Atheist 2.5%, Buddhist 5.9%, Sikhs .4%.
The 2001 Australian Census, the Catholic population was 5,001,624 or 26.6% of the total Australian population.

Why should a private organization that takes no state funds not be allowed to have the membership it wants?

If I open a gay bar and decide that I don't want heterosexuals in it. I can do that right now. There are gay bars that will ask non gay patrons to leave.
I don't remember any lawsuits against them. I know many gay bars that make women so uncomfortable they go away. Some that even tell them to leave. Is it right? Nope not one bit. But it is allowed in the private sector to some degree.
In a free world if I do not want to be around people who drink and smoke, I can open a juice and coffee bar and I can even hire only non smokers and drinkers. I should be able to do the opposite as well but anti smokers the way they are.

While I believe that a private Christian school that tells a young man he can't come back because he got caught drinking after a football game or telling a young woman she can't come back because her parents are women, is very unchristian. It is in their rights to do so at least in many countries.
I don't believe I would want that to change. I don't want the government in my church or the school we operate telling us what to believe or how to worship. I am very thankful the Christian school I teach at is a little better at understanding then the schools that get posted about. Homosexuals are welcome students with gay parents are welcome. People of different races are welcome and we have students of different faiths. Are they all going to like what we teach? Not one bit but the rules and belief structure of our school is given to each and every parent/student. They do have choice not to come to our school. We also give them a chance to discuss things that don't agree with. They don't have to believe as I do and I don't always agree with all the beliefs that my school holds. If a student breaks the rules they get a chance to make good. If they break them again the parents and students get their chance. But a third time and more then likely they will be expelled. One of the attractions of Private Schools is the environment. It is our duty to see that environment does not get interrupted. No one is forced to go to a private school.

Regards,

JMayo



I still can't figure out how to edit a post, go figure.

The exodus of children from state-run schools means that more and more money is chasing fewer and fewer pupils so more and more administrators can be employed, and unions appeased.
Exodus? WHAT exodus? In many places the pace of school construction can't keep up with demand.

Schools held in Community Trust could apply to the state for grants for improving the school, or could raise money independently. Such monies should be untaxed.
Oh goodie, even MORE rangling and lobying at the state legislature for school funds.

Um, what is all this about brainwashing? I've never heard of brainwashing in private schools.

I go to a private school which offers assisted places for people who can't afford the fees - I know quite a few people who got in this way. The government decided to take away the funding though, so the school has to provide on its own. :headbang:
So, education shouldn't be a matter of money, but there's no reason to abolish private schools.

Across Australia, and the US state school enrolment is declining.

If you'd bothered to read my proposal, you'd have worked out that it greatly reduces squabbling over education funds in the legislature by giving virtually all thos funds directly to parents, and letting them decide which schools get the money.

The good ol' Socialist that I am tells you that public schools is the way to go. :)

Education may never be a matter of money, it should be a matter of brains. You got the brains, go to school, learn, becomes a very valuable member of your society!

In turn, you should have to give back to your society when you graduated. Doctors should have to spend their first year(s) treating people without insurance, lawyers should have to spend their first year(s) defending people who can't afford a laywer. It's win-win again, the society gets qualified workers who take the burden of treating/defending those who can't afford it, and they get practice.

Private schools only mean that those who can afford it can study, and thus you create a two class society, where those with money stay those with money, and those without remain poor, no matter how smart they are.

Your brains should be the divider in society. Not your parent's money.

On the other hand, that "no child left behind" bullspit is equally nonsense. You don't "pull them" with you, you push those who could do better down to their level. God didn't create everyone equal. There are those who're smart, and there are those who're not. And there's jobs for either group.

And yet public schools find no difference between those of intellect and those of somewhat challenged cranial capacity, and simply forces them into one class, wherin those whose character is exrovert or oppresive flourish, and those of intellect yet a introvert character are ignored. Furthermore, the affluent are heniously taxed at present, and ought to be granted the capacity to utilise what little of their money remains, subsequent to its theft, to enrich the lives of their kin.

Um, what is all this about brainwashing? I've never heard of brainwashing in private schools.

I go to a private school which offers assisted places for people who can't afford the fees - I know quite a few people who got in this way. The government decided to take away the funding though, so the school has to provide on its own. :headbang:
So, education shouldn't be a matter of money, but there's no reason to abolish private schools.

Private and public education are both all about money.

Its only that private education is more honest about it. In public education, money drives everything, firstly, its how much tax and borrowing can the Government get away with. Stage Two: how much of that can be given to education before the oppositions starts prattling on about transport and police. Stage Three: Public sector unions, how much is needed to appease the public sector unions by having a bloated bureaucracy,and paying teachers for tenure, rather than merit. Finally: take the remainder and ration it to each student for his/her education.

With private education, its what can you pay for, along with scholarships and the assisted places that Liskeinland mentioned.

And yet public schools find no difference between those of intellect and those of somewhat challenged cranial capacity, and simply forces them into one class, wherin those whose character is exrovert or oppresive flourish, and those of intellect yet a introvert character are ignored. Furthermore, the affluent are heniously taxed at present, and ought to be granted the capacity to utilise what little of their money remains, subsequent to its theft, to enrich the lives of their kin.

I would not say public schools is a one size fits all program any more.

Public schools
Public schools get their financing from local, state, and federal government funds. In most cases, they must admit all students who live within the borders of their district. Charter schools and magnet schools are two relatively new kinds of public schools.

• Charter schools began appearing in the early 90s. They are autonomous, "alternative" public schools started by parents, teachers, community organizations, and for-profit companies. These schools receive tax dollars but the sponsoring group must also come up with private funding. Charter schools must adhere to the basic curricular requirements of the state but are free from many of the regulations that apply to conventional schools and the day-to-day scrutiny of school boards and government authorities.

Considered cutting edge, charter schools usually challenge standard education practices and sometimes specialize in a particular area, such as technology, the arts, or a back-to-basics core-subjects approach. Some charter schools are specifically for gifted or high-risk kids. They usually offer smaller classes and more individual attention than conventional public schools. To find out more about charter schools and where to find them in your area, visit the U.S. Charter Schools Web site.

• Magnet schools are highly competitive, highly selective public schools renowned for their special programs, superior facilities, and high academic standards. They may specialize in a particular area, such as science or the arts. Students who apply to these schools go through a rigorous testing and application process. Some magnet schools have boarding facilities to allow students from out of state to attend. Magnet schools were first launched in the late 1970s to help desegregate public school systems by encouraging children to attend schools outside their neighborhoods. Student diversity is still an explicit goal of most magnet schools.

Everyone is heniously taxed at present, the affluent, the working class, and the poor.


Regards

JMayo

OK, I admit, I worded it badly at the beginning. I did not mean that all private schools teach values that are in direct opposition to society's beliefs. However, many religious private schools discriminate in who they allow into their school (Only certain denominations, good [insert religion here] parents who live a good [insert religion here] lifestyle etc.). Implicitly, they are teaching their students that this is unacceptable. Public schools are not allowed to do this. They have to take everyone.

Um, what is all this about brainwashing? I've never heard of brainwashing in private schools.

I go to a private school which offers assisted places for people who can't afford the fees - I know quite a few people who got in this way. The government decided to take away the funding though, so the school has to provide on its own.
So, education shouldn't be a matter of money, but there's no reason to abolish private schools.

As I stated in the OP, I was basing the argument on the post about the school who kicked out a girl whose parents were gay. Furthermore, I have friends who went to a Christian Outreach College, and everything they did was religion based. That's in every subject. I probably should have clarified that I was not referring to every private school though.

My argument is that removing private schools prevents any opportunity for those schools who do indoctrinate and discriminate from doing so.

No they should not be... [snip]
Regards,

JMayo

No you are not forced to go. Except by your parents. Is every single student at your school a devout whatever-your-religion/denomination is? Why should a student who does not share the beliefs of a school be forced to go to that school just because their parents have those beliefs? Abolishing private schools solves this problem. Furthermore, why should a school be allowed to refuse an education to anyone that wants to go there, just because they "don't fit the structure"? Again, abolishing private schools solves this problem.

I don't know too much about how America operates with regard to funding for schools, or how their school system works, but in Australia, private schools can refuse to take students with impairments on the grounds that they can't meet their specific needs (including intellectual ones). Public schools cannot. Private schools in Australia (referring specifically to QLD) can and do balance the odds with regard to results for their students in their favour. I did prac in an elite QLD private school. My friends went to another elite private school in QLD. The assessments they were given were the same as mine. But as they were a private school, the assistance given to them to complete the assignments was far greater. They got direction as to which section of their libraries to look in, spent time in class looking at how to write the assignment (specifically, what you had to include in each paragraph, teacher wrote intro and conclusion), got examples of completed assignments. Their "revision" sheets were actually the exams, given to them a week before. I got none of that. We got told, "when you get to uni, or out in the real world, you're going to need these skills." Furthermore, if any public school in QLD did all that, they'd get shot down by the Moderation Board, Verification, etc.

Why should a private organization that takes no state funds not be allowed to have the membership it wants?

Because they do get state funds, more than public schools at the federal level (at least in Australia). But they don't have to abide by the same rules. That's not fair.

this is the longest reply I've ever done in NS! And my 2nd topic went over 2 pages. GO ME! :D

If I open a gay bar and decide that I don't want heterosexuals in it. I can do that right now. There are gay bars that will ask non gay patrons to leave.
I don't remember any lawsuits against them. I know many gay bars that make women so uncomfortable they go away. Some that even tell them to leave. Is it right? Nope not one bit. But it is allowed in the private sector to some degree.
I think education is just a little bit different from music and alcoholic drinks.

Ok, so this is after I read the big thread about the private school that expelled the daughter of two lesbians, because her parents were gay. Everyone (sensible) agreed that it was wrong.

Private schools (especially religious ones) teach things which are in direct opposition to society's beliefs. They are designed for parents who do not wish their children to be exposed to the beliefs of state schools. They also (in Australia) generally can pick and choose which students they will take and which ones they won't. They are legally allowed to discriminate. They can basically teach whatever they like, and in some cases become centres for indoctrination of particular moral values.

State schools on the other hand, teach everyone, teachers can't impose their moral values on their students, and they teach state mandated curriculums in most places.

So, should private schooling be abolished?

Don't public schools impose the moral values and social teachings of the State just as some private schools do so with their own moral and social teachings?

Don't Private Schools have a right to teach whoever they want with their own resources and property? Don't I have a right to sell a car to my friend and not to you?

The fact is that Private Schools can be quite good, or they can be religious indoctrination camps. The problem is that in order to compete with free schooling, they have to offer things to parents like religious instruction, or exceptional academics.

I think most, if not all schools should be private. We should take away free public education from people who could afford their own, and only provide it for people who can't afford it. This would create a market for schools and schooling that would drive prices down and quality up. My family can afford to send me to a private school, even at today's prices, why should we steal other people's money to fund my schooling?

Ok, so this is after I read the big thread about the private school that expelled the daughter of two lesbians, because her parents were gay. Everyone (sensible) agreed that it was wrong.

Private schools (especially religious ones) teach things which are in direct opposition to society's beliefs. They are designed for parents who do not wish their children to be exposed to the beliefs of state schools. They also (in Australia) generally can pick and choose which students they will take and which ones they won't. They are legally allowed to discriminate. They can basically teach whatever they like, and in some cases become centres for indoctrination of particular moral values.

State schools on the other hand, teach everyone, teachers can't impose their moral values on their students, and they teach state mandated curriculums in most places.

So, should private schooling be abolished?

There is nothing wrong with private schools. Only it shows that better people need to be in charge of them and found them. I hope to one day found one myself.

As I stated in the OP, I was basing the argument on the post about the school who kicked out a girl whose parents were gay. Furthermore, I have friends who went to a Christian Outreach College, and everything they did was religion based. That's in every subject. I probably should have clarified that I was not referring to every private school though.

My argument is that removing private schools prevents any opportunity for those schools who do indoctrinate and discriminate from doing so.

Which sounds a lot like chasing a mouse with nuclear weapons. Sure, you'll get the mouse, if he's within 30 miles you'll get the little bastard, but theres a lot of unnecessary destruction.

Your idea destroys:

Freedom of religion
Freedom of association
Freedom of speech
Property rights
The right of parents to bring up their children in accordance with a particular set of beliefs

Removing the private system, as I have shown, will not remove, or even reduce indictrination. It will merely remove or reduce indoctrination that teachers' unions, and the ALP disapprove of.

For someone who talks about the wrongfulness of indoctrination, you seem perfectly indoctrinated with the socialist, PC doctrines that with which teachers were themselves indoctrinated. On the one hand you talk about freedoms, but with every mention of freedom, is the idea that the state must approve.

No you are not forced to go. Except by your parents. Is every single student at your school a devout whatever-your-religion/denomination is? Why should a student who does not share the beliefs of a school be forced to go to that school just because their parents have those beliefs? Abolishing private schools solves this problem. Furthermore, why should a school be allowed to refuse an education to anyone that wants to go there, just because they "don't fit the structure"? Again, abolishing private schools solves this problem.

A child's parents have the legitimate right to decide for their children, and to teach them. What you're arguing for is simply the literal nanny state.

A private school can reject people because of freedom of association, freedom of religion, and property rights.

If a child doesn't hold to the parent's beliefs, then it is an internal family matter. Nothing to do with the state, unless the state can prove actual abuse (and send a kid to a school he doesn't like or identify with isn't abuse, if that were true, every kid in Australia would be in care, every parent in gaol)

Besides, abolishing private schools doesn't solve that problem. It merely sweeps it under the rug. People in state-run schools who don't "fit the structure" are neglected, there's usually nothing outside school for them. Taking all comers isn't necessarily a virtue, especially if it means taking 15+ year olds who aren't remotely interested.

private schools can refuse to take students with impairments on the grounds that they can't meet their specific needs (including intellectual ones).

Meaning they have limited resources, and must prioritise. That's the reality of the world.

I did prac in an elite QLD private school. My friends went to another elite private school in QLD. The assessments they were given were the same as mine. But as they were a private school, the assistance given to them to complete the assignments was far greater. They got direction as to which section of their libraries to look in, spent time in class looking at how to write the assignment (specifically, what you had to include in each paragraph, teacher wrote intro and conclusion), got examples of completed assignments.

Dedicated teachers, maybe too dedicated, but this level of help doesn't happen in state-run schools because there is no accountability.

Because they do get state funds, more than public schools at the federal level (at least in Australia). But they don't have to abide by the same rules. That's not fair.

He was talking about a school that doesn't get state funds.

Don't public schools impose the moral values and social teachings of the State just as some private schools do so with their own moral and social teachings? Actually, as a teacher education student, I can tell you that we have had the exact opposite drummed into our skulls. Don't push your moral values onto your students, because that's not your place

Don't Private Schools have a right to teach whoever they want with their own resources and property? Don't I have a right to sell a car to my friend and not to you? Selling a car is a little different to using state money to break the law. State schools cannot legally discriminate in who they take because they are government-funded. Private schools (which in Australia, are in fact government funded) shouldn't be allowed to either.

The fact is that Private Schools can be quite good, or they can be religious indoctrination camps. The problem is that in order to compete with free schooling, they have to offer things to parents like religious instruction, or exceptional academics. The only problem I have is that they cheat to provide exceptional academics.

I think most, if not all schools should be private. We should take away free public education from people who could afford their own, and only provide it for people who can't afford it. This would create a market for schools and schooling that would drive prices down and quality up. My family can afford to send me to a private school, even at today's prices, why should we steal other people's money to fund my schooling? What planet do you live on? Every person has the right to a free public education, that is UN LAW! Furthermore, it would only destroy the public education sector, and further unfairly limit the educational opportunities of those less fortunate, meaning that only the rich would go to university, only the rich would get the opportunity for career enhancement. The poverty cycle would be even more unbreakable than it already is. And by the way, even if your parents send you to a private school, they are still stealing other people's money, since private schools are publicly funded. At the federal level, they actually get more money than public schools.

I think education is just a little bit different from music and alcoholic drinks.

That may have been the case at your school. :p :D

On a serious note, I think the problem started when people in government decided that state-funded educationhad to be state-run education.

What planet do you live on? Every person has the right to a free public education, that is UN law! Furthermore, it would only destroy the public education sector, and further unfairly limit the educational opportunities of those less fortunate, meaning that only the rich would go to university, only the rich would get the opportunity for career enhancement. The poverty cycle would be even more unbreakable than it already is. And by the way, even if your parents send you to a private school, they are still stealing other people's money, since private schools are publicly funded. At the federal level, they actually get more money than public schools.

I canned the bold, and the unnecessary caps.

State-run education is totally different from state-funded education. You should read my education proposal.

Again, for someone who talks about the wrongness of indoctrinating people in schools, you spout the statist, socialist, PC doctrines by the numbers.

That may have been the case at your school. :p :D
Kenmore State High Represent!!!!

In the end it really doesn't matter all that much anyway. I went to a Public School, and I got an OP2. A female friend of mine went to an elite school and got a 17.

Important is though that even Private Schools go by the rules, I have heard bad but credible stories about BBC (Brisbane Boy's College) cheating at their QCS Tests to get their students better OPs...

I attend a privet religious school and i am taught eveolution, my parents did not send me to the public school here because the school board and admin’s are idiots, and I kind of wanted to go to a privet school, the education that i get is so much better than the one the public school offered, also privet schools get no government funding and my parents still have to pay taxes for the public school even tho i dont attend

...and I kind of wanted to go to a privet school, the education that i get is so much better than the one the public school offered
I doubt it.
How good the education is is entirely up to you.

And I hope you're not from an English speaking country, cuz it's spelled "Private".... :D

I doubt it.
How good the education is is entirely up to you.

And I hope you're not from an English speaking country, cuz it's spelled "Private".... :D

its true I did choose to attend the private school and iam from a english speeking country- i just failed my spelling classes when i was in grade school, so yah i cant spell all that well :)

I canned the bold, and the unnecessary caps.

State-run education is totally different from state-funded education. You should read my education proposal.

Again, for someone who talks about the wrongness of indoctrinating people in schools, you spout the statist, socialist, PC doctrines by the numbers.

Thanks for that, I'm not good at the formatting bit :p .

Yeah, I happen to think that your proposal would be a good idea in a lot of ways. I happen to be a huge advocate of the public education system, because it caters to every child, whether they are academically inclined or not (take QLD's Education and Training Reforms for the Future and revamped Senior Certificate as an example).

I happen to be a socialist, but not a very knowledgeable one (I'm not into philosophy and politics). As for the rest, I tend to think that state education doesn't indoctrinate, because (at least in QLD) we aren't allowed to discuss politics, religion, class differences etc. unless it relates to our subject (it's a little difficult to escape politics in a history class). We also are not allowed to give our opinion on matters. E.G. Biology teachers in QLD cannot give their opinion on evolution versus creationism. I as an English teacher cannot give my opinion on anything in the media. So therefore, we are not interfering in the choices made by students or parents with regard to belief systems. I recognise that many teachers do not adhere to these guidelines, and in many cases the teacher's unions themselves don't, but that is not the fault of state education; it is the fault of ideologically driven teachers, who shouldn't be teaching.

its true I did choose to attend the private school and iam from a english speeking country- i just failed my spelling classes when i was in grade school, so yah i cant spell all that well :)

So how in the hell did you pass English? Unless correct spelling and grammar wasn't a requirement to pass? Because in my school, if you didn't have correct spelling and grammar, you didn't pass English, no matter how good your actual writing was...

So how in the hell did you pass English? Unless correct spelling and grammar wasn't a requirement to pass? Because in my school, if you didn't have correct spelling and grammar, you didn't pass English, no matter how good your actual writing was...

i passed english beacues for the most part my grammer was pritty good and all of my teachers knew/know that i am dyslexic. Also it helped that i was/am a better reader than most of my teachers and i actualy understood what we read and could recite most of the book from memory and i rememberd what the teachers said.
for the spelling part they figured out that if they asked me to spell out the words verbaly i got them right but if i had to write them out i got them wrong.

i passed english beacues for the most part my grammer was pritty good and all of my teachers knew/know that i am dyslexic. Also it helped that i was/am a better reader than most of my teachers and i actualy understood what we read and could recite most of the book from memory and i rememberd what the teachers said.
for the spelling part they figured out that if they asked me to spell out the words verbaly i got them right but if i had to write them out i got them wrong.

I didn't know you were dyslexic. I'll just shut up now. Sorry :( .

But reciting the book from memory/remembering what the teacher said doesn't equate to learning to me. It equates to having a really good memory. To me, someone has to actually be able to apply knowledge to have learnt something. Being able to recite a book doesn't mean application.

I didn't know you were dyslexic. I'll just shut up now. Sorry :( .

But reciting the book from memory/remembering what the teacher said doesn't equate to learning to me. It equates to having a really good memory. To me, someone has to actually be able to apply knowledge to have learnt something. Being able to recite a book doesn't mean application.

your probly right about the learning = the ability to apply

Dont worry about the Dyslexia thing, i really dont care- to tell you the truth i only figured it out last year( iam 16) my teachers never told me and neather did my parents- i actualy glad that they did not and that i figured it out on my own, i just view it as a way to make the world more intertaining

Ok, so this is after I read the big thread about the private school that expelled the daughter of two lesbians, because her parents were gay. Everyone (sensible) agreed that it was wrong.

Private schools (especially religious ones) teach things which are in direct opposition to society's beliefs. They are designed for parents who do not wish their children to be exposed to the beliefs of state schools. They also (in Australia) generally can pick and choose which students they will take and which ones they won't. They are legally allowed to discriminate. They can basically teach whatever they like, and in some cases become centres for indoctrination of particular moral values.

State schools on the other hand, teach everyone, teachers can't impose their moral values on their students, and they teach state mandated curriculums in most places.

So, should private schooling be abolished?

1. Society's values? Society doesn't have a set of "values" because society isn't a cohesive unit. A society is just a collection of individuals, individuals who have varying beliefs on virtually everything. State schools and private schools are almost always going to teach something offensive to a person's "values." The difference, of course, is that if your child attends private school and you disagree with the moral bias or teaching method or the color of the teacher's hair, you can enroll at another private school or even public school. If your child attends a public school, you have to either open enroll at another school (and hope there's enough room for your kid) or move. And, if you're financially well off, you can opt for a private school.

2. I attended public school all my life. I've definitely been exposed to my teachers' political and moral biases.

3. I agree that expelling a child from a school because her parents are gay is absurd. I also agree that the school has a right to do it. I'm pretty sure I am sensible.

As for the rest, I tend to think that state education doesn't indoctrinate, because (at least in QLD) we aren't allowed to discuss politics, religion, class differences etc. unless it relates to our subject (it's a little difficult to escape politics in a history class). We also are not allowed to give our opinion on matters. E.G. Biology teachers in QLD cannot give their opinion on evolution versus creationism. I as an English teacher cannot give my opinion on anything in the media. So therefore, we are not interfering in the choices made by students or parents with regard to belief systems. I recognise that many teachers do not adhere to these guidelines, and in many cases the teacher's unions themselves don't, but that is not the fault of state education; it is the fault of ideologically driven teachers, who shouldn't be teaching.

It is the fault of the state governments because they won't take on the unions (being Labor governments, they are dependent on unions, that (and the states' relative lack of fiscal independence) why schooling reform in Australia is done at the Federal level)

In New South Wales, socialist indoctrination is definitely taking hold, with topics in English like Consumerism. In Australian History there is a predominance of what Windschuttle calls the "black" armband view of Australian history, with no room to question it (there's practically no room to question it outside school).

Also, state run education tends to take a one-size fits all approach, so people tend to be marginalised. The only ones who get out OK are the sheeple (most people, they keep their heads down, socialise well, and do OK academically), the mature faithful (great marks, get along with the teachers), and the mature heretics (people like me). There's no incentive to change because no one will lose their jobs, and no school will lose money. Another problem is the undemocratic nature of state education.

State education is owned by the people, and is meant to benefit their children, yet the educrats and teachers think it is OK, even essential to hide real performance behind silly buzzwords. We have so-called social innovators talking about how "the majorities fixation with literacy and numeracy oppresses minorities"

Here's a little from Tassie: In Tasmania, the official school syllabus website describes how its practitioners "deconstruct the structures and features of texts"; "no longer consider texts to be timeless, universal or unbiased"; ask "if the text presents unequal positions of power" and "work for social equity and change". "As we begin to analyse the powerful ways in which visual, spoken, written, multimedia and performance texts work and we discover the ways in which our feelings, attitudes and values are manipulated by language, we begin to operate powerfully within our world. We are able to become agents of social change working towards the removal of inequalities and injustices."

Pure socialist indoctrination.

From the United States, the National Education Association, the union for state-school teachers. Their policy agenda:

* To participate in a national boycott of Wal-Mart (Two resolutions);
* To fight efforts to privatize Social Security (nine separate resolutions);
* To add the words "other" and "multi-ethnic" in addition to "unknown" in the category of ethnicity on all forms;
* To commemorate the "historic merger of the National Education Association and the American Teachers Association, which occurred in 1966";
* To expose health problems associated with "fragrance chemicals"; (I assume this means perfumes. Another resolution called for designating areas of NEA meetings as "fragrance-free zones.");
* To fight indoor air pollution (two resolutions);
* To make health care an organizational priority;
* To expand efforts to elect pro-public education candidates to Congress in 2006;
* To promote the designation of April as National Donate Month to promote organ and tissue donation;
* To push for a commemorative stamp honoring public education;
* To push for more collective bargaining;
* To study the feasibility of a boycott of Gallo wine (A separate resolution banned the serving of Gallo wine at any NEA functions.);
* To develop a strategic program to help NEA Republican members advance a pro-public education agenda with the party;
* To defend affirmative action and oppose the Michigan Civil Rights Amendment;
* To oppose the annual observance of "Take Your Child to Work Day" during the regular school year;
* To oppose all forms of privatization;
* To investigate the establishment of affordable housing programs for members;
* To respond aggressively to any inappropriate use of the words "retarded" or "gay" in the media;
* To fight the "regressive taxation practices of the federal government";
* To support education programs for prisoners and former prisoners;
* To support research on women and heart disease;
* To push for an "exit strategy to end the U.S. military occupation of Iraq";
* To oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement;
* To push for debt cancellation in underdeveloped countries;
* To teach children about the "significant history of labor unions";
* To develop a comprehensive strategy of support for homosexuality;
* To educate the public and members about identity theft;
* To explore alternatives to using latex balloons and gloves at NEA functions.

(N.B. My part of Australia, the Far North Coast of NSW is better of than most because we get older teachers because they all want to retire up here)

Yeah, they ripped that off the Queensland syllabus, I'll bet. Actually, being that I'm training to become an English teacher, I don't see what's inherently wrong with deconstructing texts. As long as the teachers are providing the skills to do it, not deconstructing it for the students. The skills which are provided by deconstruction are highly transferrable, and quite useful. I use them quite frequently on this forum :D .

Texts aren't unbiased, nor are they universal or timeless. No text is, because it is a product of a particular culture at a particular point in time. Cultures change, what they value changes. We still value Shakespeare, but he wasn't the only writer around at the time who was valued by the society in which he lived. But we don't study them in schools, because they do not have relevance to our society.

Of course texts represent unequal distributions of power, and it is important to ask who is writing it and for what purpose. While some writers do write just for a good story, others don't. Orwell, Huxley, and Golding spring to mind...

Our feelings etc. are manipulated by language. That's why reading is such a great pasttime, and why certain books change lives, why certain texts can change society. Martin Luther King's speech certainly did that. It's why Shakespeare, Sylvia Plath, Dickens, Austen, Bruce Dawe, Huxley, Golding, Orwell, Churchill et al, are so revered. Because they manipulated language to provoke us into emotion, or thought, or action. By understanding how writers do this, we hope our students will be able to both appreciate it more, and be smart about what they read, view, see and hear, regardless of who has written it.
However, I do not, and will not agree that we as teachers should be indoctrinating our students into our viewpoints. It ain't right and it's one of the things which angers me about the teacher's unions.

I agree totally about the black armband approach to history. Which is why I chose English and Japanese as my teaching areas. :p