Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools (1 Viewer)

[nerdasdasd]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/educ...-pits-and-swimming-pools-20160410-go37i9.html

Twenty of Sydney's wealthiest private schools received $111 million in taxpayer funding last year, new data has revealed, allowing the institutions to subsidise plans for tennis courts, flyover theatre towers, and Olympic pools with underwater cameras.

The schools, including The King's School, Trinity Grammar and SCECGS Redlands, have offset parents investments through the public purse courtesy of an $11 million increase in combined state and federal funding since 2012, according to MySchool data.

On Friday, Fairfax Media revealed that the oldest girls school in Australia, St Catherine's in Waverley, had won a battle to build a $63 million auditorium complete with an orchestra pit, a water polo pool, and a flyover tower for state-of-the-art theatre productions.

Thoughts?

Should we be funding private schools more or should it be cut?

 

[enoilgam]

Re: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/taxpayers-fund-private-school-orchestra-

From reading that article, they only receive half that of a public school which is fine with me.

Overall though, I think private education is a gigantic waste of money - you might as well get your money and flush it down the toilet. Catholic schools arent too bad, because you get good value for money. But there is no way Id pay $30k a year for a private school. Id much rather save that money and give it to my child on their uni graduation to act as a deposit on a property. That will set them up far better in life than a private education.

 

[Chronost]

All schools should be privatised, no school (public or private) should get any government assistance at all.

Not sure if sarcasm or troll bait or both.

 

[Orwell]

I agree with saltedwound, there should be no government intervention in the economy, which of course, would be inclusive of education. Things would be far better.

 

[Error404]

I'm serious. Why do you think I'm being sarcastic?



Totally agree.

Suuuurrreeeeee

 

[Shuuya]

Why is it so difficult to accept that I am being serious about this? I genuinely don't think that our taxes should be going towards ridiculous things such as funding private and public schools.

What should they be going towards then?

 

[Chronost]

So no education for low income families? You saying only the rich get the best education when in fact plenty of smart kids not in rich families who wont be able to reach much potential. Thats what really causes inefficiencies in the economy, not government funded schools

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Orwell]

No, lol. Saltedwound you're not helping my case.

Public "education" is atrocious. Look at the numbers. Kids are failing out in large numbers, quality is low, and attendance is forced. School is literally a prison for children from poor/low-income families. A lot of those problems stem from teachers unions. They are interested in guarding their salaries instead educating the children. Because of these --government-protected-- teacher unions, it is hard-to-impossible to fire crummy teachers. Guess what happens to the quality of education? It plummets.

Competition in the market for education leads to quality education at low-to-no cost. Private schools in the free market have financial incentives to tailor their education curriculum to the needs of the child. The state has no such need since it gets funding through theft(taxation). Look at the results: kids are disinterested, they drop out, truancy laws have to be put into place etc....

Not to mention, in a free society information and ideas are FREELY available on the internet(no IP laws). Kids wouldn't even have to leave their home to get whatever type of elementary training and info they need. Most of the garbage they teach, in public schools, has nothing to do with essential market skills that will make you employable once you graduate.

Schools in the free market would likely be more compact and teach the essentials plus a trade. No need to waste nearly a decade and-a-half learning things you'll never use again. It's an economic waste of time and money.

Basically education in a free society will likely be "free", because of the internet and no control over the use of information and ideas I.E. eliminating IP law.

Also, the logic that "I want people to be educated, therefore government!" is a non sequitur.

 

[Flop21]

Arguing no funding should be put into schools is disgusting.

Education should be one of the highest priorities of the government and its funding. Education and health.

It's kind of funny saltedwound you arguing against that since you seem like you need those two things the most.

 

[Flop21]

No, lol. Saltedwound you're not helping my case.

Public "education" is atrocious. Look at the numbers. Kids are failing out in large numbers, quality is low, and attendance is forced. School is literally a prison for children from poor/low-income families. A lot of those problems stem from teachers unions. They are interested in guarding their salaries instead educating the children. Because of these --government-protected-- teacher unions, it is hard-to-impossible to fire crummy teachers. Guess what happens to the quality of education? It plummets.

Competition in the market for education leads to quality education at low-to-no cost. Private schools in the free market have financial incentives to tailor their education curriculum to the needs of the child. The state has no such need since it gets funding through theft(taxation). Look at the results: kids are disinterested, they drop out, truancy laws have to be put into place etc....

Not to mention, in a free society information and ideas are FREELY available on the internet(no IP laws). Kids wouldn't even have to leave their home to get whatever type of elementary training and info they need. Most of the garbage they teach, in public schools, has nothing to do with essential market skills that will make you employable once you graduate.

Schools in the free market would likely be more compact and teach the essentials plus a trade. No need to waste nearly a decade and-a-half learning things you'll never use again. It's an economic waste of time and money.

Basically education in a free society will likely be "free", because of the internet and no control over the use of information and ideas I.E. eliminating IP law.

Also, the logic that "I want people to be educated, therefore government!" is a non sequitur.

This has nothing to do with funding from the government. How school works and how kids are educated is a whole different story.

 

[Carrotsticks]

Just ignore saltedwound guys. He/she is either a troll or a complete ignoramus.

In either case, they are to be ignored.

 

[Orwell]

Yes it does, re-read what I wrote and see if you can find the link this time.

If you're still adamant that there's no correlation, please put forth your argument.

 

[Orwell]

Also @ Chronost and Shuyaa.

1) Taxation is a scam, all government intervention should be alleviated and the free market implemented.
2) The methodology teachers choose to equip and the conduct of the classroom are the main factors, and any discrepancies in either two are sourced by government intervention, namely, the establishing of teacher's unions.

 

[Flop21]

Yes it does, re-read what I wrote and see if you can find the link this time.

If you're still adamant that there's no correlation, please put forth your argument.

You can have all those things without removing funding. Funding simply subsides the cost for students. Like uni fees.

What difference does it make when this money comes from the government vs a child's parents?

 

[nerdasdasd]

You can have all those things without removing funding. Funding simply subsides the cost for students. Like uni fees.

What difference does it make when this money comes from the government vs a child's parents?

It makes no difference but we would have lots of people missing out on school because they cannot afford it.

In areas of low socioeconomic areas, poverty and unemployment + crime would become higher than what it is at the moment.

 

[eyeseeyou]

Can't schools be smart and use their space for profit (during school holidays and weekends) rather than leave the buildings closed and used for nothing? That way hey can self sufficiently fund themselves without relying on too much government help. They could bring in a DJ on the weekends and then masses of ppl can come on saturday night etc etc you get what I mean

 

[Orwell]

It's an economic waste of resources. If we remove compulsory school attendance, i.e. abolish truancy law. And if we remove other laws that prove to be restrictions on learning and the availability/accessibility of information and education, i.e. IP laws, we'd have a far smarter group of people.

Teacher's Unions are a manifestation of the negatives of government intervention. As stated before, the main incentives usually revolve around money as opposed to teaching. Competition in the free market sees teacher's be payed based on their skills and methods, as opposed to what we have now, a guaranteed, secure payment whereby a teacher's capabilities isn't a main determinant/often overlooked resulting in teachers getting comfortable.

Removing funding propels this notion of competition, you work hard, you receive a fair share. In turn, not only does this boost the quality of a student's education, it also means teacher's tailor their lessons in accordance with the student's needs and wants dispelling of this governmental curriculum that waste's time.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Also @ Chronost and Shuyaa.

1) Taxation is a scam, all government intervention should be alleviated and the free market implemented.
2) The methodology teachers choose to equip and the conduct of the classroom are the main factors, and any discrepancies in either two are sourced by government intervention, namely, the establishing of teacher's unions.

Taxation is not a scam.

It's needed because humans are inherently greedy and people would do anything just to make money. Taxation absorbes the externalised cost of the actions of those doing business.

 

[Nailgun]

Can't schools be smart and use their space for profit (during school holidays and weekends) rather than leave the buildings closed and used for nothing? That way hey can self sufficiently fund themselves without relying on too much government help. They could bring in a DJ on the weekends and then masses of ppl can come on saturday night etc etc you get what I mean

i don't think the dj idea is very feasible lol besides that it doesn't sound very appealing, would get old real fast. but it's not a bad idea in general

im pree sure some schools like baulko actually rent out their basketball courts on weekends and afterschool, so I think you could probably have some kind of renting out of sports facilities, or even like drama or dance facilities. but yeah there are still like admin and supervisory costs.
would never even close to government funding numbers though, it would be more like a minor fundraising kind of thing

 

[Orwell]

"Just as no one is morally required to answer a robber truthfully when he asks if there are any valuables in one's house, so no one can be morally required to answer truthfully similar questions asked by the State, e.g., when filling out income tax returns." - Murray Rothbard

Tax is absolute theft, it's forced upon people by the government and if you don't pay your taxes, particular services are withheld from you. I'm suggesting voluntaryism.


You're referring to crony capitalism, which is what's going on now. Businesses being subsidised by the government and being kept at top-tier positions within the market in attribution to unethical means enforced by governmental bodies is what we have now, the term is corporatism. You don't need any current taxes to fund the basic and essential government, just so you know.