Quote:
Originally Posted by jack
It is free for the kid. Adults pay it in the form of taxes.
Ok. So obviously there is a limit to how much per child can be spent. Is that limit competing with the budgets of private schools? If not, then how can it change, and why should it change?
Quote:
This child will then begin an adult life with no student loan to pay off. A clean slate. Then he/she can also live life without that specific burden, while contributing via taxes just like the adults did previously.
But what if state education doesn't compete with private education? Simply saying "it should" is hand waving without a solution. There are reasons it doesn't compete, cultural and budgetary.
Quote:
I don't want there to be a need for a private sector at all
So you're removing the choice of parents to choose a higher standard of education. You want the public sector to compete with the private sector, but how can it? Do you think the taxpayer has an unlimited budget? Wealthy people practically do. The amount of money a wealthy individual can pay towards a child's education is a great deal more than the taxpayer can afford per child. That is the problem, and I don't know what you think the solution is. Pointing to Finland ignores the population and cultural problems we have here in the UK.
Quote:
Sure you can homeschool if you so choose. The schools being free AND good should mean you have excellent options for the education of your kid.
Key word - options. You want to remove options.
Quote:
- More teachers and more schools
Increase in tax.
Quote:
- Make teaching/education an attractive option by adding proper long term incentives for the educators
Such as increased wages and perks? Increase in tax.
Quote:
- Make pedagogy more widespread, ergo more people to aid in teaching
Sounds reasonable.
Quote:
What options do you have?
A public and private sector, public sector funded as well as can be and at a high enough standard to give everyone a reasonable chance of success in life. Private sector for options beyond a reasonable tax burden.
Quote:
So, there do not exist any private religious schools?
Yes, plenty. My problem with them is the "religious" bit, not the "private" bit. But if you're in favour of religious schools, then you must also either be in favour of private schools, or the state funding religious schools. I though we all at least agree the state has no business in religion.
Quote:
Yeah, lot's of crazy motherfuckers out there. But, the name would say it all: "Church of England school"
That's besides the point. The point is, is it ok for schools to teach creationism?
Quote:
But this is a decision your parents get to make as long as you are not of age yet, and that is a different discussion. Unfortunately, you can't just strip away religion from society.
No, but you can separate religion from the state. That includes state funded education.
Quote:
J -- "The fuck, when did I say anything about any muslim? Damn"
It was in the context of public and private schools. It exposes a conflict in your position. Either you support private schools, or you support the state funding religious schools. Or, like me, you oppose religious schools of all sorts, including Islamic. I mentioned Islamic schools when I could easily have mentioned Catholic. Had I said Catholic, you wouldn't be outraged into calling me xeno. So yes, it's a reflex. It's a knee jerk reaction to me opposing a religion that you dare not oppose because you think it's mean to hate on a system of oppressive control.
Quote:
Fun fact: Catholicism oppresses women too apparently.
Fun fact - Catholicism can go fuck itself into oblivion, too.
Quote:
All religions have their things. Can you just not live and let live? You sound like a cranky 80 year old sitting with a shotgun in a rocking chair and a spittoon nearby
This is England. We walk around muddy fields with shotguns, we don't rock back on chairs.
I oppose all religion. I oppose Islam the most because it's oppressive and growing in my country.
