I have a bee in my bonnet about the consequences of education being compulsory by law.
The one huge consequence of a compulsory education law is that, because some people are too poor to afford to buy the compulsory education, the country passing the law pays a fixed amount for those parents' children to be schooled through taxation instead of, for example, sending the adults of the family to jail for not obeying the law and then selling the children to richer adoptive parents. We can call that Fact 1.
Once the country pays a fixed amount for some children of poor families to be schooled through taxation, the country for some reason switches to all children being offered the same fixed amount toward their schooling paid for through taxation. We can call that Fact 2. Fact 1 doesn't require Fact 2 at all, surely.
Once the country offers to pay a fixed amount for all children to be schooled through taxation, the country for some reason nominates a subset of schools - usually schools which it sets up and runs itself rather than privately owned schools, but that's become less true recently - and says it will only make the payment to those schools but not to any other. We can call that Fact 3 and that's also entirely independent of the previous facts. A downside to this, in terms of social equity, is that the children of the rich are attracted to more expensive schools open only to advantaged children where they acquire early benefits over those of their age who are educated for the comparatively low fixed amount that the country makes available per child for schooling. We can call that Fact 3 and recognise that this, in turn, is independent of the earlier facts.
Would someone like to explain to me why each of these three independent facts is true, with a hint as to why each is or isn't acceptable to the electorate?
Compulsory education
Compulsory education
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
I am a little confused here Spot .¦ are you talking about private education only, and its availability to low income families? Or are you talking about lack of availability to any education.
Unless things have changed dramatically since I have been home, education is available to everyone regardless of financial situation.
Or are you talking about non-payment of local taxes, and if so are you saying, that families who don’t pay the taxes are no longer able to send them to public school?
Unless things have changed dramatically since I have been home, education is available to everyone regardless of financial situation.
Or are you talking about non-payment of local taxes, and if so are you saying, that families who don’t pay the taxes are no longer able to send them to public school?
Compulsory education
I'm talking about normal everyday schools in the first two paragraphs, I mention fee-paying schools in the third.
Because some people are too poor to afford to buy the compulsory education, the country passing the law pays a fixed amount for those parents' children to be schooled through taxation. That's in normal, usually state-run, schools. Does that make sense so far?
The country for some reason switches to all children being offered the same fixed amount toward their schooling paid for through taxation - still in normal, usually state-run, schools. Still making sense? If there were no poor people then presumably all schooling would be paid for by parents, that seems a reasonable assumption.
Then the country for some reason nominates a subset of schools to which it's prepared to make the payments. Those are still the normal, usually state-run, schools.
Where did you lose touch with me?
Because some people are too poor to afford to buy the compulsory education, the country passing the law pays a fixed amount for those parents' children to be schooled through taxation. That's in normal, usually state-run, schools. Does that make sense so far?
The country for some reason switches to all children being offered the same fixed amount toward their schooling paid for through taxation - still in normal, usually state-run, schools. Still making sense? If there were no poor people then presumably all schooling would be paid for by parents, that seems a reasonable assumption.
Then the country for some reason nominates a subset of schools to which it's prepared to make the payments. Those are still the normal, usually state-run, schools.
Where did you lose touch with me?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
Is the "fixed amount" of money you're suggesting lower or higher than that of the money being offered by the state as is through taxation now?...Is there a significant difference?...
Compulsory education
K.Snyder;912701 wrote: Is the "fixed amount" of money you're suggesting lower or higher than that of the money being offered by the state as is through taxation now?...Is there a significant difference?...
I so wish I could write good English.
What I've described is what happens now, today. I'm not suggesting any changes at all, I'm discussing our current school system.
I so wish I could write good English.
What I've described is what happens now, today. I'm not suggesting any changes at all, I'm discussing our current school system.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
Here, let me try a simplified version.
Fact 1 - the country pays for the children of poor families to go to school because the country says they have to go.
Fact 2 - the country offers to pay for everyone else's children to go to school, presumably thinking that's the fairest thing it can do.
Fact 3 - the country will only make the payments to some schools, not to just any school.
Mentioned in passing - all the money involved is taxation money.
Mentioned in passing - some children go to more expensive schools and get a head start on the others.
Fact 1 - the country pays for the children of poor families to go to school because the country says they have to go.
Fact 2 - the country offers to pay for everyone else's children to go to school, presumably thinking that's the fairest thing it can do.
Fact 3 - the country will only make the payments to some schools, not to just any school.
Mentioned in passing - all the money involved is taxation money.
Mentioned in passing - some children go to more expensive schools and get a head start on the others.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
You feel the price to buy the compulsory education is higher than the national average of low income peoples can afford?...
Compulsory education
So what your say is the poor kids still can't go to the rich kids school no matter what the government tax is on education? Or your saying they are giving parent voucher for their childs education that can't be used at all schools?
Pretty much the way it is here everyone pays taxes and every child can go to public school. If your rich you can afford and pay to go to private schools. They do reduce the rates to some students families if you meet the qualifications.
[QUOTE]Here, let me try a simplified version.
Fact 1 - the country pays for the children of poor families to go to school because the country says they have to go.
Fact 2 - the country offers to pay for everyone else's children to to to school, presumably thinking that's the fairest thing it can do.
Fact 3 - the country will only make the payments to some schools, not to just any school.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much the way it is here everyone pays taxes and every child can go to public school. If your rich you can afford and pay to go to private schools. They do reduce the rates to some students families if you meet the qualifications.
[QUOTE]Here, let me try a simplified version.
Fact 1 - the country pays for the children of poor families to go to school because the country says they have to go.
Fact 2 - the country offers to pay for everyone else's children to to to school, presumably thinking that's the fairest thing it can do.
Fact 3 - the country will only make the payments to some schools, not to just any school.[/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
Compulsory education
CARLA;912719 wrote: So what your say is the poor kids still can't go to the rich kids school no matter what the government tax is on education?
Pretty much the way it is here everyone pays taxes and every child can go to public school. If your rich you can afford and pay to go to private schools. They do reduce the rates to some students families if you meet the qualifications.
I believe his reference is in that very same concept with his emphasis on "public schooling" being the poor end of the spectrum...Being that the "private schools" are the ones from which the poor cannot afford...
Pretty much the way it is here everyone pays taxes and every child can go to public school. If your rich you can afford and pay to go to private schools. They do reduce the rates to some students families if you meet the qualifications.
I believe his reference is in that very same concept with his emphasis on "public schooling" being the poor end of the spectrum...Being that the "private schools" are the ones from which the poor cannot afford...
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Compulsory education
CARLA;912719 wrote: So what your say is the poor kids still can't go to the rich kids school no matter what the government tax is on education? Or your saying they are giving parent voucher for their childs education that can't be used at all schools?
Pretty much the way it is here everyone pays taxes and every child can go to public school. If your rich you can afford and pay to go to private schools. They do reduce the rates to some students families if you meet the qualifications.
He's not suggesting anything yet. He's laying out the reality & asking
Why these three facts are true, and
If the three facts are acceptable, or at least why wouldn't they be.
Pretty much the way it is here everyone pays taxes and every child can go to public school. If your rich you can afford and pay to go to private schools. They do reduce the rates to some students families if you meet the qualifications.
He's not suggesting anything yet. He's laying out the reality & asking
Why these three facts are true, and
If the three facts are acceptable, or at least why wouldn't they be.
Compulsory education
Thanks ACC it is way to early here on the west coast for me to answer any of spots questions. :wah:
[QUOTE]He's not suggesting anything yet. He's laying out the reality & asking Why these three facts are true, and If the three facts are acceptable, or at least why wouldn't they be. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]He's not suggesting anything yet. He's laying out the reality & asking Why these three facts are true, and If the three facts are acceptable, or at least why wouldn't they be. [/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
Compulsory education
On fact 3, only some countries do this AFAIK. In the U.S. there's growing interest in school vouchers ... giving a fixed amount of money to the kids (for example $10k/year), and allowing them to spend it at any public or private school. Several EU countries do this as well I believe. There's no reason a private school should be more or less expensive to operate than a public one.
Although IMO there's no reason to force education, the only thing we can do is parrot the behaviors that might be involved when someone learns something. It's a choice... and makes no sense being compulsory to me.
I'd rather switch to a scholarship-based model, where people are given money on some merit ... art, science, math, music, etc, and can apply it towards an education. Everyone should be allowed to get some money. But if people don't want the money, they shouldn't be forced to accept it, just to do a tap dance for 12 years, memorizing trivia.
Although IMO there's no reason to force education, the only thing we can do is parrot the behaviors that might be involved when someone learns something. It's a choice... and makes no sense being compulsory to me.
I'd rather switch to a scholarship-based model, where people are given money on some merit ... art, science, math, music, etc, and can apply it towards an education. Everyone should be allowed to get some money. But if people don't want the money, they shouldn't be forced to accept it, just to do a tap dance for 12 years, memorizing trivia.
Compulsory education
I'll go back a step, how's that.
Some time ago, education was made compulsory by law.
Is it a good or a bad thing that we leave that law in place instead of rescinding it, given that the consequence is either paying out of taxation for the children of the poor to go, or jailing the poor for non-compliance.
Even if the country does pay for the children of the poor to go, is there the slightest reason on earth why the tax system should pay out a penny to educate the others?
Why is it that I can never ever manage to get my question understood when I try to ask about the tax system paying for education? I write it a hundred ways and nobody ever reads what I write, they just assume they know what I asked.
K.Snyder;912717 wrote: You feel the price to buy the compulsory education is higher than the national average of low income peoples can afford?...
Nothing about national averages, nothing about defining what's low income, merely the fact that there are some families that can't set aside as much uncommitted income as it would take to pay for their children to be educated at a normal ordinary school. Because the country insists that education is compulsory, the country pays for them to go. It uses tax to cover the bill. If education weren't compulsory the country wouldn't insist on them going so perhaps it wouldn't pay.
Some time ago, education was made compulsory by law.
Is it a good or a bad thing that we leave that law in place instead of rescinding it, given that the consequence is either paying out of taxation for the children of the poor to go, or jailing the poor for non-compliance.
Even if the country does pay for the children of the poor to go, is there the slightest reason on earth why the tax system should pay out a penny to educate the others?
Why is it that I can never ever manage to get my question understood when I try to ask about the tax system paying for education? I write it a hundred ways and nobody ever reads what I write, they just assume they know what I asked.
K.Snyder;912717 wrote: You feel the price to buy the compulsory education is higher than the national average of low income peoples can afford?...
Nothing about national averages, nothing about defining what's low income, merely the fact that there are some families that can't set aside as much uncommitted income as it would take to pay for their children to be educated at a normal ordinary school. Because the country insists that education is compulsory, the country pays for them to go. It uses tax to cover the bill. If education weren't compulsory the country wouldn't insist on them going so perhaps it wouldn't pay.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
spot;912811 wrote: I'll go back a step, how's that.
Some time ago, education was made compulsory by law.
Is it a good or a bad thing that we leave that law in place instead of rescinding it, given that the consequence is either paying out of taxation for the children of the poor to go, or jailing the poor for non-compliance.
Even if the country does pay for the children of the poor to go, is there the slightest reason on earth why the tax system should pay out a penny to educate the others?
Why is it that I can never ever manage to get my question understood when I try to ask about the tax system paying for education? I write it a hundred ways and nobody ever reads what I write, they just assume they know what I asked.
Any society that feels the public's education is not important is a society doomed for mediocrity or at best sub par political endeavorment at the same time leaving it's citizens prone to subjugated freedoms...
Yes, the public should pay for the public's education without bias...
Some time ago, education was made compulsory by law.
Is it a good or a bad thing that we leave that law in place instead of rescinding it, given that the consequence is either paying out of taxation for the children of the poor to go, or jailing the poor for non-compliance.
Even if the country does pay for the children of the poor to go, is there the slightest reason on earth why the tax system should pay out a penny to educate the others?
Why is it that I can never ever manage to get my question understood when I try to ask about the tax system paying for education? I write it a hundred ways and nobody ever reads what I write, they just assume they know what I asked.
Any society that feels the public's education is not important is a society doomed for mediocrity or at best sub par political endeavorment at the same time leaving it's citizens prone to subjugated freedoms...
Yes, the public should pay for the public's education without bias...
Compulsory education
K.Snyder;912836 wrote: Any society that feels the public's education is not important is a society doomed for mediocrity or at best sub par political endeavorment at the same time leaving it's citizens prone to subjugated freedoms...
Yes, the public should pay for the public's education without bias...
So even though Mister X has no partner and no family and no child and no immediate family with children, Mister X still has to pay a share of the tax which goes into education?
Why? How does Mister X benefit from handing over his money for that?
Yes, the public should pay for the public's education without bias...
So even though Mister X has no partner and no family and no child and no immediate family with children, Mister X still has to pay a share of the tax which goes into education?
Why? How does Mister X benefit from handing over his money for that?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
spot;912846 wrote: So even though Mister X has no partner and no family and no child and no immediate family with children, Mister X still has to pay a share of the tax which goes into education?
Why? How does Mister X benefit from handing over his money for that?
His desire for the well being of other people within his society should influence his willingness to pay taxes for a better educated society...A better educated society allows for more morale decisions associated with humanity and the environment...If Mr. X doesn't care to pay taxes for the betterment of societies education then Mr. X doesn't care about humanity or the environment...
But I think it's an overall accepted ideology that humanity and the environment humanity lives in is the number one concern of everyone...And I think a better education is the key to better humanitarian ideology as well as the overall awareness of the environments' well being...
Mr. X should pay taxes to better the publics' education because Mr. X lives within that very same environment and Mr. X is not the only person that leads to that environments' well being...
Why? How does Mister X benefit from handing over his money for that?
His desire for the well being of other people within his society should influence his willingness to pay taxes for a better educated society...A better educated society allows for more morale decisions associated with humanity and the environment...If Mr. X doesn't care to pay taxes for the betterment of societies education then Mr. X doesn't care about humanity or the environment...
But I think it's an overall accepted ideology that humanity and the environment humanity lives in is the number one concern of everyone...And I think a better education is the key to better humanitarian ideology as well as the overall awareness of the environments' well being...
Mr. X should pay taxes to better the publics' education because Mr. X lives within that very same environment and Mr. X is not the only person that leads to that environments' well being...
Compulsory education
K.Snyder;912871 wrote: His desire for the well being of other people within his society should influence his willingness to pay taxes for a better educated society...A better educated society allows for more morale decisions associated with humanity and the environment...You're speaking from the most expensively educated country on earth which is stonewalling every moral decision associated with humanity and the environment which is proposed for international treaty, I don't think that argument holds any water whatever. Less expensively educated countries seem more capable of working toward the common good of all.
Even so, and we accept for the moment that the country should use tax money to educate the children of the poor who can't afford it, why should it use tax money to educate the children of the families which can afford it? Why is Mister X handing money into the education pool for them too? Those children would be just as well educated if the country left the burden of payment on the family concerned.
Even so, and we accept for the moment that the country should use tax money to educate the children of the poor who can't afford it, why should it use tax money to educate the children of the families which can afford it? Why is Mister X handing money into the education pool for them too? Those children would be just as well educated if the country left the burden of payment on the family concerned.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
spot;912881 wrote: You're speaking from the most expensively educated country on earth which is stonewalling every moral decision associated with humanity and the environment which is proposed for international treaty, I don't think that argument holds any water whatever. Less expensively educated countries seem more capable of working toward the common good of all. I don't speak for other people...If you have a problem with America I would suggest writing to Washington...There are very large groups in America dedicated to the well being of humanity and the environment you know...
spot;912881 wrote:
Even so, and we accept for the moment that the country should use tax money to educate the children of the poor who can't afford it, why should it use tax money to educate the children of the families which can afford it? Why is Mister X handing money into the education pool for them too?
In my opinion I think it's not a question of "why should it use tax money to educate the children of the families which can afford it?" it should be a matter of lessoning the burden on the poor...The taxes associated with education, and in my opinion other things, should be distributed proportionally in respect to the amount of income one assumes...That is to say the wealthy should be taxed more than the poor...Which dives into the whole inequality factor which is most assuredly a whole another topic...
spot;912881 wrote:
Even so, and we accept for the moment that the country should use tax money to educate the children of the poor who can't afford it, why should it use tax money to educate the children of the families which can afford it? Why is Mister X handing money into the education pool for them too?
In my opinion I think it's not a question of "why should it use tax money to educate the children of the families which can afford it?" it should be a matter of lessoning the burden on the poor...The taxes associated with education, and in my opinion other things, should be distributed proportionally in respect to the amount of income one assumes...That is to say the wealthy should be taxed more than the poor...Which dives into the whole inequality factor which is most assuredly a whole another topic...
Compulsory education
K.Snyder;912893 wrote: In my opinion I think it's not a question of "why should it use tax money to educate the children of the families which can afford it?" it should be a matter of lessoning the burden on the poor...The taxes associated with education, and in my opinion other things, should be distributed proportionally in respect to the amount of income one assumes...That is to say the wealthy should be taxed more than the poor...Which dives into the whole inequality factor which is most assuredly a whole another topic...
And you really seriously think that if the children of the poor couldn't go to school it would make your country less well educated, less dedicated to the well being of humanity and the environment? How many children are you talking about whose families wouldn't be able to afford schooling if it weren't paid for by taxes, given that you live in the richest country on the planet? One in a thousand? One in a hundred?
And you really seriously think that if the children of the poor couldn't go to school it would make your country less well educated, less dedicated to the well being of humanity and the environment? How many children are you talking about whose families wouldn't be able to afford schooling if it weren't paid for by taxes, given that you live in the richest country on the planet? One in a thousand? One in a hundred?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
spot;912908 wrote: And you really seriously think that if the children of the poor couldn't go to school it would make your country less well educated, less dedicated to the well being of humanity and the environment? How many children are you talking about whose families wouldn't be able to afford schooling if it weren't paid for by taxes, given that you live in the richest country on the planet? One in a thousand? One in a hundred?
Without the taxes for education divided equally I would say about one in five could not afford paying into their childs' education alone...
And yes upon the responsibility of parents to individually pay for their childs' education it would make my country less well educated, and less dedicated to the well being of humanity and the environment...
Without the taxes for education divided equally I would say about one in five could not afford paying into their childs' education alone...
And yes upon the responsibility of parents to individually pay for their childs' education it would make my country less well educated, and less dedicated to the well being of humanity and the environment...
Compulsory education
K.Snyder;912941 wrote: Without the taxes for education divided equally I would say about one in five could not afford paying into their childs' education alone...
And yes upon the responsibility of parents to individually pay for their childs' education it would make my country less well educated, and less dedicated to the well being of humanity and the environment...
Why? You've just said you could reduce the education budget of the USA to 20% of its current figure, paying only for 1 in 5 children whose parents can't afford to cover the cost, and that the other families would all pay from income. You wanted to lessen the burden on the poor, surely this is focusing the country's tax resources directly on them.
Bringing the tax bill for education down by 80% is very close to my original target. Why would you be unhappy at this solution?
And yes upon the responsibility of parents to individually pay for their childs' education it would make my country less well educated, and less dedicated to the well being of humanity and the environment...
Why? You've just said you could reduce the education budget of the USA to 20% of its current figure, paying only for 1 in 5 children whose parents can't afford to cover the cost, and that the other families would all pay from income. You wanted to lessen the burden on the poor, surely this is focusing the country's tax resources directly on them.
Bringing the tax bill for education down by 80% is very close to my original target. Why would you be unhappy at this solution?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Compulsory education
spot;912811 wrote: Why is it that I can never ever manage to get my question understood when I try to ask about the tax system paying for education? I write it a hundred ways and nobody ever reads what I write, they just assume they know what I asked.
Pardon the **** out of me. I'll just bow out then.
Pardon the **** out of me. I'll just bow out then.
Compulsory education
Accountable;912966 wrote: Pardon the **** out of me. I'll just bow out then.
People treat this question like it was leprous, you included. You can scarcely bow out of something you've not spoken to. I'd be delighted to know your opinion, I just haven't seen it yet.
People treat this question like it was leprous, you included. You can scarcely bow out of something you've not spoken to. I'd be delighted to know your opinion, I just haven't seen it yet.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
spot;912964 wrote: Why? You've just said you could reduce the education budget of the USA to 20% of its current figure, paying only for 1 in 5 children whose parents can't afford to cover the cost, and that the other families would all pay from income. You wanted to lessen the burden on the poor, surely this is focusing the country's tax resources directly on them.
Bringing the tax bill for education down by 80% is very close to my original target. Why would you be unhappy at this solution?
I wouldn't be if you could present a thesis describing your propositions...
But the fact still remains that everyone would still have to pay taxes so that 20% would receive that money so that their children can get an adequate education...I've never said the taxes weren't too high and mismanaged...I simply voiced as to the reasoning behind why one to whom does not have a child should be obligated to pay taxes for education...The primary reason is the 20% described as being unable to afford a legitimate education for their children...
Bringing the tax bill for education down by 80% is very close to my original target. Why would you be unhappy at this solution?
I wouldn't be if you could present a thesis describing your propositions...
But the fact still remains that everyone would still have to pay taxes so that 20% would receive that money so that their children can get an adequate education...I've never said the taxes weren't too high and mismanaged...I simply voiced as to the reasoning behind why one to whom does not have a child should be obligated to pay taxes for education...The primary reason is the 20% described as being unable to afford a legitimate education for their children...
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Compulsory education
spot;912975 wrote: People treat this question like it was leprous, you included. You can scarcely bow out of something you've not spoken to. I'd be delighted to know your opinion, I just haven't seen it yet.
Nope. Far be it for me to assume I understand what you ask. My apologies for offending you so deeply.
Nope. Far be it for me to assume I understand what you ask. My apologies for offending you so deeply.
Compulsory education
spot;912811 wrote: I'll go back a step, how's that.
Some time ago, education was made compulsory by law.
Is it a good or a bad thing that we leave that law in place instead of rescinding it, given that the consequence is either paying out of taxation for the children of the poor to go, or jailing the poor for non-compliance.
I'm saying the law should be rescinded.
spot;912811 wrote: Even if the country does pay for the children of the poor to go, is there the slightest reason on earth why the tax system should pay out a penny to educate the others?
I don't think you can "educate" a person ... that's the problem. A person can choose to educate themselves with or without the help of others.
However, you can't have a working democracy with an ignorant populace. It would be a wise use of tax money to promote a desire of education, although there's nothing to teach if people don't want to learn.
So yes and no.
spot;912811 wrote:
Why is it that I can never ever manage to get my question understood when I try to ask about the tax system paying for education? I write it a hundred ways and nobody ever reads what I write, they just assume they know what I asked.
You need a little more Strunk and White in your writing style.
http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/style.html
Some time ago, education was made compulsory by law.
Is it a good or a bad thing that we leave that law in place instead of rescinding it, given that the consequence is either paying out of taxation for the children of the poor to go, or jailing the poor for non-compliance.
I'm saying the law should be rescinded.
spot;912811 wrote: Even if the country does pay for the children of the poor to go, is there the slightest reason on earth why the tax system should pay out a penny to educate the others?
I don't think you can "educate" a person ... that's the problem. A person can choose to educate themselves with or without the help of others.
However, you can't have a working democracy with an ignorant populace. It would be a wise use of tax money to promote a desire of education, although there's nothing to teach if people don't want to learn.
So yes and no.
spot;912811 wrote:
Why is it that I can never ever manage to get my question understood when I try to ask about the tax system paying for education? I write it a hundred ways and nobody ever reads what I write, they just assume they know what I asked.
You need a little more Strunk and White in your writing style.
http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/style.html
Compulsory education
K.Snyder;912978 wrote: I wouldn't be if you could present a thesis describing your propositions...I haven't any propositions to present, I have three questions which I've put. So far they've discovered one person wanting to withdraw all education funding from 80% of families - the Snyder Response - and one rescinding compulsory education entirely - the yaaarrrgg approach, backed by an offer to transfer some of the saved tax into adverts making bought education appear sexy.
I'm puzzled at the lack of anyone defending compulsory fully-funded education with a convincing reason. Would anyone at least like to suggest why there's such resistance to making the case in favour?
I'm puzzled at the lack of anyone defending compulsory fully-funded education with a convincing reason. Would anyone at least like to suggest why there's such resistance to making the case in favour?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
spot;913064 wrote: I haven't any propositions to present, I have three questions which I've put. So far they've discovered one person wanting to withdraw all education funding from 80% of families - the Snyder Response
Just to clarify my intent is to make taxes proportionate in association to income...Just that with the poor it would equate to very minimal taxes...
Just to clarify my intent is to make taxes proportionate in association to income...Just that with the poor it would equate to very minimal taxes...
Compulsory education
spot;913064 wrote: So far they've discovered one person wanting to withdraw all education funding from 80% of families - the Snyder Response -
I've obviously read you wrong initially...I still believe all should pay taxes for the education of the public...Families or no families...
To add to the fact that my belief that one in five families, to whom cannot afford an adequate education for their children, more often than not have more than one child...
I've obviously read you wrong initially...I still believe all should pay taxes for the education of the public...Families or no families...
To add to the fact that my belief that one in five families, to whom cannot afford an adequate education for their children, more often than not have more than one child...
Compulsory education
spot;912881 wrote: You're speaking from the most expensively educated country on earth which is stonewalling every moral decision associated with humanity and the environment which is proposed for international treaty, I don't think that argument holds any water whatever. Less expensively educated countries seem more capable of working toward the common good of all.
spot:
Are you afraid to say "KYOTO"?
Last tyme I looked it was a 5 letter word NOT 4
spot:
Are you afraid to say "KYOTO"?
Last tyme I looked it was a 5 letter word NOT 4
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Compulsory education
Thank you BTS. And on the matter of compulsory schooling?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
spot;913618 wrote: Thank you BTS. And on the matter of compulsory schooling?
hey now spot,I am edjumacated"
c it worcs, that compulsory schooling Rilley dose
hey now spot,I am edjumacated"
c it worcs, that compulsory schooling Rilley dose
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Compulsory education
BTS;913626 wrote: hey now spot,I am edjumacated"
c it worcs, that compulsory schooling Rilley doseI'd obviously not thought through my case sufficiently well or I'd have demanded forcible adult remedial classes until the backward ones finally pass the tests. We'll have to attach adult earnings to pay for it too, how's that?
c it worcs, that compulsory schooling Rilley doseI'd obviously not thought through my case sufficiently well or I'd have demanded forcible adult remedial classes until the backward ones finally pass the tests. We'll have to attach adult earnings to pay for it too, how's that?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
spot;913632 wrote: I'd obviously not thought through my case sufficiently well or I'd have demanded forcible adult remedial classes until the backward ones finally pass the tests. We'll have to attach adult earnings to pay for it too, how's that?
remedial?
Is that where I call meself?
re-me-dial :-3
remedial?
Is that where I call meself?
re-me-dial :-3
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Compulsory education
BTS;913633 wrote: remedial?
Is that where I call meself?
re-me-dial :-3
NURSE! The enema equipment please, with lots of ice. This one's booking in for a long stay.
Is that where I call meself?
re-me-dial :-3
NURSE! The enema equipment please, with lots of ice. This one's booking in for a long stay.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
spot;913636 wrote: NURSE! The enema equipment please, with lots of ice. This one's booking in for a long stay.
Oh my god............. you are not my grandmother that believed the enima cured ALL r U?
Oh my god............. you are not my grandmother that believed the enima cured ALL r U?
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Compulsory education
BTS;913637 wrote: Oh my god............. you are not my grandmother that believed the enima cured ALL r U?
Works for me.
Lie on your stomach, take a deep breath. You can't make a protest if you've no ammunition, after all. This'll hurt me more than it hurts you.
Works for me.
Lie on your stomach, take a deep breath. You can't make a protest if you've no ammunition, after all. This'll hurt me more than it hurts you.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
spot;913639 wrote: Works for me.
Lie on your stomach, take a deep breath.
Reminds me of an old Zappa song about a true story:
The Illinois Enema Bandit
This is a true story
About a famous criminal
From right around chicago
This is the story of michael kenyon
A man who's serving time at this very moment
For the crime of armed robbery
It so happened, that at the time of the robbery
Michael, decided to give his female victims
A little enema
Apparently, there was no law against that
But his name lives on
Michael kenyon
The illinois enema bandit!
The illinois enema bandit
I heard he's on the loose
I heard he's on the loose
Lord, the pitiful screams
Of all them college-educated women...
Boy, he'd just be tyin' 'em up
(they'd be all bound down!)
Just be pumpin' every one of 'em up with all the bag fulla
The illinois enema bandit juice
He just be pumpin' every one of 'em up with all the bag
Fulla the illinois enema bandit juice
He just be pumpin' every one of 'em up with all the bag
Fulla the illinois enema bandit juice
He just be pumpin' every one of 'em up with all the bag
Fulla the illinois enema bandit juice
The illinois enema bandit
I heard it on the news
I heard it on the news
Bloomington illinois...he has caused some alarm
Just sneakin' around there
From farm to farm
Got a rubberized bag
And a hose on his arm
Lookin' for some rustic co-ed rump
That he just might wanna pump
Lookin' for some rustic co-ed rump
That he just might wanna pump
Lookin' for some rustic co-ed rump
That he just might wanna pump
The illinois enema bandit
One day he'll have to pay
One day he'll have to pay
The police will say, you're under arrest!
And the judge would have him for a special guest
The d.a. will order a secret test
And stuff his pudgy little thumbs in the side of his vest
Then they'll put out a call for the jury folks
And the judge would say, no poo-poo jokes!
Then they'll drag in the bandit for all to see,
Sayin' don't nobody have no sympathy...
Hot soap water in the first degree!
And then the bandit might say, why is everybody looking' at me?
Well did you cause this misery?
Well did you cause this kinda misery?
Well did you cause this misery?
Now, one girl shout: let the bandit be!
Bandit are you guilty?
Bandit are you guilty? tell me now, what's
Your plea?
Another girl shout: let the fiend go free!
Are you guilty? bandit, did you do these deeds?
The bandit say, it must be just what they all needs...
It must be just what they all needs...
It must be just what they all needs...
It must be just what they all needs...
It must be just what they all needs...
It must be just what they all needs...
Etc. repeat
Wanna, wanna, wanna, wanna enema
Enema
Repeat...
Lie on your stomach, take a deep breath.
Reminds me of an old Zappa song about a true story:
The Illinois Enema Bandit
This is a true story
About a famous criminal
From right around chicago
This is the story of michael kenyon
A man who's serving time at this very moment
For the crime of armed robbery
It so happened, that at the time of the robbery
Michael, decided to give his female victims
A little enema
Apparently, there was no law against that
But his name lives on
Michael kenyon
The illinois enema bandit!
The illinois enema bandit
I heard he's on the loose
I heard he's on the loose
Lord, the pitiful screams
Of all them college-educated women...
Boy, he'd just be tyin' 'em up
(they'd be all bound down!)
Just be pumpin' every one of 'em up with all the bag fulla
The illinois enema bandit juice
He just be pumpin' every one of 'em up with all the bag
Fulla the illinois enema bandit juice
He just be pumpin' every one of 'em up with all the bag
Fulla the illinois enema bandit juice
He just be pumpin' every one of 'em up with all the bag
Fulla the illinois enema bandit juice
The illinois enema bandit
I heard it on the news
I heard it on the news
Bloomington illinois...he has caused some alarm
Just sneakin' around there
From farm to farm
Got a rubberized bag
And a hose on his arm
Lookin' for some rustic co-ed rump
That he just might wanna pump
Lookin' for some rustic co-ed rump
That he just might wanna pump
Lookin' for some rustic co-ed rump
That he just might wanna pump
The illinois enema bandit
One day he'll have to pay
One day he'll have to pay
The police will say, you're under arrest!
And the judge would have him for a special guest
The d.a. will order a secret test
And stuff his pudgy little thumbs in the side of his vest
Then they'll put out a call for the jury folks
And the judge would say, no poo-poo jokes!
Then they'll drag in the bandit for all to see,
Sayin' don't nobody have no sympathy...
Hot soap water in the first degree!
And then the bandit might say, why is everybody looking' at me?
Well did you cause this misery?
Well did you cause this kinda misery?
Well did you cause this misery?
Now, one girl shout: let the bandit be!
Bandit are you guilty?
Bandit are you guilty? tell me now, what's
Your plea?
Another girl shout: let the fiend go free!
Are you guilty? bandit, did you do these deeds?
The bandit say, it must be just what they all needs...
It must be just what they all needs...
It must be just what they all needs...
It must be just what they all needs...
It must be just what they all needs...
It must be just what they all needs...
Etc. repeat
Wanna, wanna, wanna, wanna enema
Enema
Repeat...
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Compulsory education
spot;913064 wrote: one rescinding compulsory education entirely - the yaaarrrgg approach, backed by an offer to transfer some of the saved tax into adverts making bought education appear sexy.
Well, the more important thing IMO is channeling that tax money into scholarships, that a person of any age could use to learn a field or trade. If these are diverse, you will attract more people than a one-size-fits-all approach to education.
I don't think buying/selling education should be the central focus at all, only "certification." What does it matter if a person has a GED, for example, if they apply for a computer related job and have more advanced certifications?
Well, the more important thing IMO is channeling that tax money into scholarships, that a person of any age could use to learn a field or trade. If these are diverse, you will attract more people than a one-size-fits-all approach to education.
I don't think buying/selling education should be the central focus at all, only "certification." What does it matter if a person has a GED, for example, if they apply for a computer related job and have more advanced certifications?
Compulsory education
yaaarrrgg;914119 wrote: Well, the more important thing IMO is channeling that tax money into scholarships, that a person of any age could use to learn a field or trade. If these are diverse, you will attract more people than a one-size-fits-all approach to education.
I don't think buying/selling education should be the central focus at all, only "certification." What does it matter if a person has a GED, for example, if they apply for a computer related job and have more advanced certifications?
What's the difference?...Scholarships are nothing more than an investment...Which to me equates to the buying and selling of education...People don't give out scholarships to other people because they like them...They do it because it's an investment to their return...They don't give out as many scholarships because the average college kid changes courses rhythmatically...Imagine how many times this would quadruple when scholarships are given out to five year olds...
I don't think buying/selling education should be the central focus at all, only "certification." What does it matter if a person has a GED, for example, if they apply for a computer related job and have more advanced certifications?
What's the difference?...Scholarships are nothing more than an investment...Which to me equates to the buying and selling of education...People don't give out scholarships to other people because they like them...They do it because it's an investment to their return...They don't give out as many scholarships because the average college kid changes courses rhythmatically...Imagine how many times this would quadruple when scholarships are given out to five year olds...
Compulsory education
rjwould;914313 wrote: What is this? A lovers spat?:wah: Stop whining and either speak to the issue or not, but stop acting like a stifled wife.:wah:
Put her down this instant Rj, she's spoken for.
Put her down this instant Rj, she's spoken for.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Compulsory education
K.Snyder;914274 wrote: What's the difference?...Scholarships are nothing more than an investment...Which to me equates to the buying and selling of education...People don't give out scholarships to other people because they like them...They do it because it's an investment to their return...They don't give out as many scholarships because the average college kid changes courses rhythmatically...Imagine how many times this would quadruple when scholarships are given out to five year olds...
I think the reason college kids change majors so frequently, is that they honestly don't have a good feel for their own desires and talents. They are all pushed through a one-size-fits-all education, treated as identical, then are supposed to figure out something that they can do for a living.
Then they go off the beaten path, and quickly learn about themselves (rather than regurgitate something on a test). This might seem like a failure to a test-based education system ... or is it true learning? With scholarships, kids would naturally travel down different paths early on, following their talents and interests. The more talent/need/interest in a subject, the more money they could get. I'd sooner just start the process earlier.
In a democracy, I do see scholarships as a worthwhile investment. The return is long term, and admittedly speculative. But I'd sooner invest in that, than the bulk of military spending we do.
I think the reason college kids change majors so frequently, is that they honestly don't have a good feel for their own desires and talents. They are all pushed through a one-size-fits-all education, treated as identical, then are supposed to figure out something that they can do for a living.
Then they go off the beaten path, and quickly learn about themselves (rather than regurgitate something on a test). This might seem like a failure to a test-based education system ... or is it true learning? With scholarships, kids would naturally travel down different paths early on, following their talents and interests. The more talent/need/interest in a subject, the more money they could get. I'd sooner just start the process earlier.
In a democracy, I do see scholarships as a worthwhile investment. The return is long term, and admittedly speculative. But I'd sooner invest in that, than the bulk of military spending we do.
Compulsory education
yaaarrrgg;914359 wrote:
Then they go off the beaten path, and quickly learn about themselves (rather than regurgitate something on a test). This might seem like a failure to a test-based education system ... or is it true learning? With scholarships, kids would naturally travel down different paths early on, following their talents and interests. The more talent/need/interest in a subject, the more money they could get. I'd sooner just start the process earlier.
I can only see this working from a higher educational stand point...Which is already the case as is...
Because this would in my opinion increase the unemployment rate from which lower income workers make up for by the means from which eliminates the correlation of equal interests alongside simple work that is needed to be done...People would spend too much time on working for scholarships at a young age only for 60% of them to fail...Which leaves more jobs unfulfilled inspired by a dream much too crediting...The average IQ is what 100-110?...Most of the labor union consists of relatively non complex jobs...I think the scholarships would place too much emphasis on brain power and not enough on labor...
Which from my opinion is as I've said,..I only see unlimited scholarships being helpful in higher educational learning, which is the case as is...
Then they go off the beaten path, and quickly learn about themselves (rather than regurgitate something on a test). This might seem like a failure to a test-based education system ... or is it true learning? With scholarships, kids would naturally travel down different paths early on, following their talents and interests. The more talent/need/interest in a subject, the more money they could get. I'd sooner just start the process earlier.
I can only see this working from a higher educational stand point...Which is already the case as is...
Because this would in my opinion increase the unemployment rate from which lower income workers make up for by the means from which eliminates the correlation of equal interests alongside simple work that is needed to be done...People would spend too much time on working for scholarships at a young age only for 60% of them to fail...Which leaves more jobs unfulfilled inspired by a dream much too crediting...The average IQ is what 100-110?...Most of the labor union consists of relatively non complex jobs...I think the scholarships would place too much emphasis on brain power and not enough on labor...
Which from my opinion is as I've said,..I only see unlimited scholarships being helpful in higher educational learning, which is the case as is...
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Compulsory education
bumpspot;912608 wrote: I have a bee in my bonnet about the consequences of education being compulsory by law.
The one huge consequence of a compulsory education law is that, because some people are too poor to afford to buy the compulsory education, the country passing the law pays a fixed amount for those parents' children to be schooled through taxation instead of, for example, sending the adults of the family to jail for not obeying the law and then selling the children to richer adoptive parents. We can call that Fact 1.
Once the country pays a fixed amount for some children of poor families to be schooled through taxation, the country for some reason switches to all children being offered the same fixed amount toward their schooling paid for through taxation. We can call that Fact 2. Fact 1 doesn't require Fact 2 at all, surely.
Once the country offers to pay a fixed amount for all children to be schooled through taxation, the country for some reason nominates a subset of schools - usually schools which it sets up and runs itself rather than privately owned schools, but that's become less true recently - and says it will only make the payment to those schools but not to any other. We can call that Fact 3 and that's also entirely independent of the previous facts. A downside to this, in terms of social equity, is that the children of the rich are attracted to more expensive schools open only to advantaged children where they acquire early benefits over those of their age who are educated for the comparatively low fixed amount that the country makes available per child for schooling. We can call that Fact 3 and recognise that this, in turn, is independent of the earlier facts.
Would someone like to explain to me why each of these three independent facts is true, with a hint as to why each is or isn't acceptable to the electorate?
CARLA;912719 wrote: So what your say is the poor kids still can't go to the rich kids school no matter what the government tax is on education? Or your saying they are giving parent voucher for their childs education that can't be used at all schools?
Pretty much the way it is here everyone pays taxes and every child can go to public school. If your rich you can afford and pay to go to private schools. They do reduce the rates to some students families if you meet the qualifications.
Accountable;912726 wrote: He's not suggesting anything yet. He's laying out the reality & asking
Why these three facts are true, and
If the three facts are acceptable, or at least why wouldn't they be.
spot;912811 wrote: I'll go back a step, how's that.
Some time ago, education was made compulsory by law.
Is it a good or a bad thing that we leave that law in place instead of rescinding it, given that the consequence is either paying out of taxation for the children of the poor to go, or jailing the poor for non-compliance.
Even if the country does pay for the children of the poor to go, is there the slightest reason on earth why the tax system should pay out a penny to educate the others?
Why is it that I can never ever manage to get my question understood when I try to ask about the tax system paying for education? I write it a hundred ways and nobody ever reads what I write, they just assume they know what I asked.
Nothing about national averages, nothing about defining what's low income, merely the fact that there are some families that can't set aside as much uncommitted income as it would take to pay for their children to be educated at a normal ordinary school. Because the country insists that education is compulsory, the country pays for them to go. It uses tax to cover the bill. If education weren't compulsory the country wouldn't insist on them going so perhaps it wouldn't pay.
The one huge consequence of a compulsory education law is that, because some people are too poor to afford to buy the compulsory education, the country passing the law pays a fixed amount for those parents' children to be schooled through taxation instead of, for example, sending the adults of the family to jail for not obeying the law and then selling the children to richer adoptive parents. We can call that Fact 1.
Once the country pays a fixed amount for some children of poor families to be schooled through taxation, the country for some reason switches to all children being offered the same fixed amount toward their schooling paid for through taxation. We can call that Fact 2. Fact 1 doesn't require Fact 2 at all, surely.
Once the country offers to pay a fixed amount for all children to be schooled through taxation, the country for some reason nominates a subset of schools - usually schools which it sets up and runs itself rather than privately owned schools, but that's become less true recently - and says it will only make the payment to those schools but not to any other. We can call that Fact 3 and that's also entirely independent of the previous facts. A downside to this, in terms of social equity, is that the children of the rich are attracted to more expensive schools open only to advantaged children where they acquire early benefits over those of their age who are educated for the comparatively low fixed amount that the country makes available per child for schooling. We can call that Fact 3 and recognise that this, in turn, is independent of the earlier facts.
Would someone like to explain to me why each of these three independent facts is true, with a hint as to why each is or isn't acceptable to the electorate?
CARLA;912719 wrote: So what your say is the poor kids still can't go to the rich kids school no matter what the government tax is on education? Or your saying they are giving parent voucher for their childs education that can't be used at all schools?
Pretty much the way it is here everyone pays taxes and every child can go to public school. If your rich you can afford and pay to go to private schools. They do reduce the rates to some students families if you meet the qualifications.
Accountable;912726 wrote: He's not suggesting anything yet. He's laying out the reality & asking
Why these three facts are true, and
If the three facts are acceptable, or at least why wouldn't they be.
spot;912811 wrote: I'll go back a step, how's that.
Some time ago, education was made compulsory by law.
Is it a good or a bad thing that we leave that law in place instead of rescinding it, given that the consequence is either paying out of taxation for the children of the poor to go, or jailing the poor for non-compliance.
Even if the country does pay for the children of the poor to go, is there the slightest reason on earth why the tax system should pay out a penny to educate the others?
Why is it that I can never ever manage to get my question understood when I try to ask about the tax system paying for education? I write it a hundred ways and nobody ever reads what I write, they just assume they know what I asked.
Nothing about national averages, nothing about defining what's low income, merely the fact that there are some families that can't set aside as much uncommitted income as it would take to pay for their children to be educated at a normal ordinary school. Because the country insists that education is compulsory, the country pays for them to go. It uses tax to cover the bill. If education weren't compulsory the country wouldn't insist on them going so perhaps it wouldn't pay.
Compulsory education
spot;912608 wrote: I have a bee in my bonnet about the consequences of education being compulsory by law.
The one huge consequence of a compulsory education law is that, because some people are too poor to afford to buy the compulsory education, the country passing the law pays a fixed amount for those parents' children to be schooled through taxation instead of, for example, sending the adults of the family to jail for not obeying the law and then selling the children to richer adoptive parents. We can call that Fact 1.
Within the UK homeschooling has always been an acceptable practice and one which is protected by law and this has been reinforced by more recent legislation. The law states that parents are responsible for ensuring the child gets a suitable education, not the state. Nor does the UK government dictate what a suitable education is. There is no compulsion for those being home schooled to follow the national curriculum. I am also certain that selling children is a definate no no. So no it's not always a fact
Once the country pays a fixed amount for some children of poor families to be schooled through taxation, the country for some reason switches to all children being offered the same fixed amount toward their schooling paid for through taxation. We can call that Fact 2. Fact 1 doesn't require Fact 2 at all, surely.
The reason for the change in the UK was the provision for education to poorer children was sporadic. For a developing/develped country it make sense to ensure that all children receive a certain level of education. In the UK there has never been a fixed sum for every student. Special Education has always carried a premium, as has certain inner city areas.
Once the country offers to pay a fixed amount for all children to be schooled through taxation, the country for some reason nominates a subset of schools - usually schools which it sets up and runs itself rather than privately owned schools, but that's become less true recently - and says it will only make the payment to those schools but not to any other. We can call that Fact 3 and that's also entirely independent of the previous facts. A downside to this, in terms of social equity, is that the children of the rich are attracted to more expensive schools open only to advantaged children where they acquire early benefits over those of their age who are educated for the comparatively low fixed amount that the country makes available per child for schooling. We can call that Fact 3 and recognise that this, in turn, is independent of the earlier facts.
Fact 3 seems to be two different facts.
Fact 3a: Either I have totaly lost the plot or you have. I am not aware of any subset of schools that the government has set up then refused to fund the other schools. Certainly in the UK there has been a rise in academies. These attract additional money, but this comes with partnerships with organisations who are required to provide ongoing match funding on top of heavy investments worth several Million. Most academies are the result of closing failing schools and reopening after a lot of investment and continued investment from the partners. These have mainly been in areas of high deprivation and poor families. So in fact the higher investment is aimed at those in the most need. As the additional funding, paid for by taxes, is matched by private money this offers a much better value for the tax payers money. However the funding for other local schools remain in place. So again not a fact.
Fact 3b: The only schools open only to rich kids and not the poor are private schools, most of whom have bursaries and other schemes to help those who would benefit the most from the environment and education they can provide. The money for this often coming from the parents of the children who go to the school, ex students and other benefactors. Nor do private schools have access to the taxpayers money for each child. This has always been the case and the above does not change this.
Academies have strict entrance policies which mean the school cannot simply cream off the best of local students, they are required to take students of all abilities. Academies tend to specialise in topics and a small percentage of intake can be reserved for those who show a particular talent in those specialist subjects, but this is open to all students to apply for.
Would someone like to explain to me why each of these three independent facts is true, with a hint as to why each is or isn't acceptable to the electorate?
Sorry but unless I have completely misunderstood you I do not accept that the above are all facts for reasons I have stated.
The fact taxes pay for most childhood educational establishments means that the government has a responsibility to ensure the tax payer gets value for money. Rich parents pay towards this general education, and choose to invest their disposable income into their own childrens education with better facilities and teaching staff. I don't see a problem with that.
There is some contraversy over academies, however far more private investment is brought in offering much better value to the tax payer, and to the students.
As for the acceptability of each of these options, I guess it would depend a lot upon your views on education.
The one huge consequence of a compulsory education law is that, because some people are too poor to afford to buy the compulsory education, the country passing the law pays a fixed amount for those parents' children to be schooled through taxation instead of, for example, sending the adults of the family to jail for not obeying the law and then selling the children to richer adoptive parents. We can call that Fact 1.
Within the UK homeschooling has always been an acceptable practice and one which is protected by law and this has been reinforced by more recent legislation. The law states that parents are responsible for ensuring the child gets a suitable education, not the state. Nor does the UK government dictate what a suitable education is. There is no compulsion for those being home schooled to follow the national curriculum. I am also certain that selling children is a definate no no. So no it's not always a fact
Once the country pays a fixed amount for some children of poor families to be schooled through taxation, the country for some reason switches to all children being offered the same fixed amount toward their schooling paid for through taxation. We can call that Fact 2. Fact 1 doesn't require Fact 2 at all, surely.
The reason for the change in the UK was the provision for education to poorer children was sporadic. For a developing/develped country it make sense to ensure that all children receive a certain level of education. In the UK there has never been a fixed sum for every student. Special Education has always carried a premium, as has certain inner city areas.
Once the country offers to pay a fixed amount for all children to be schooled through taxation, the country for some reason nominates a subset of schools - usually schools which it sets up and runs itself rather than privately owned schools, but that's become less true recently - and says it will only make the payment to those schools but not to any other. We can call that Fact 3 and that's also entirely independent of the previous facts. A downside to this, in terms of social equity, is that the children of the rich are attracted to more expensive schools open only to advantaged children where they acquire early benefits over those of their age who are educated for the comparatively low fixed amount that the country makes available per child for schooling. We can call that Fact 3 and recognise that this, in turn, is independent of the earlier facts.
Fact 3 seems to be two different facts.
Fact 3a: Either I have totaly lost the plot or you have. I am not aware of any subset of schools that the government has set up then refused to fund the other schools. Certainly in the UK there has been a rise in academies. These attract additional money, but this comes with partnerships with organisations who are required to provide ongoing match funding on top of heavy investments worth several Million. Most academies are the result of closing failing schools and reopening after a lot of investment and continued investment from the partners. These have mainly been in areas of high deprivation and poor families. So in fact the higher investment is aimed at those in the most need. As the additional funding, paid for by taxes, is matched by private money this offers a much better value for the tax payers money. However the funding for other local schools remain in place. So again not a fact.
Fact 3b: The only schools open only to rich kids and not the poor are private schools, most of whom have bursaries and other schemes to help those who would benefit the most from the environment and education they can provide. The money for this often coming from the parents of the children who go to the school, ex students and other benefactors. Nor do private schools have access to the taxpayers money for each child. This has always been the case and the above does not change this.
Academies have strict entrance policies which mean the school cannot simply cream off the best of local students, they are required to take students of all abilities. Academies tend to specialise in topics and a small percentage of intake can be reserved for those who show a particular talent in those specialist subjects, but this is open to all students to apply for.
Would someone like to explain to me why each of these three independent facts is true, with a hint as to why each is or isn't acceptable to the electorate?
Sorry but unless I have completely misunderstood you I do not accept that the above are all facts for reasons I have stated.
The fact taxes pay for most childhood educational establishments means that the government has a responsibility to ensure the tax payer gets value for money. Rich parents pay towards this general education, and choose to invest their disposable income into their own childrens education with better facilities and teaching staff. I don't see a problem with that.
There is some contraversy over academies, however far more private investment is brought in offering much better value to the tax payer, and to the students.
As for the acceptability of each of these options, I guess it would depend a lot upon your views on education.
Compulsory education
I was thinking about this the other night...I'm wondering if the schools in the UK have extra incentive to kids who take an interest in playing football...Here in the U.S many kids get scholarships for sports...Is this being implemented in the UK?...
I'm sure there are a significant amount of kids who take an interest in playing football/soccer or many other sports within the UK...
I'm sure there are a significant amount of kids who take an interest in playing football/soccer or many other sports within the UK...
Compulsory education
posted by spot
Why is it that I can never ever manage to get my question understood when I try to ask about the tax system paying for education? I write it a hundred ways and nobody ever reads what I write, they just assume they know what I asked.
Perhaps if you had benefited from a decent education you would be better able to express yourself in a manner people could comprehend:D
In a situation were you are trying to communicate it is up to you to express yourself in a way that suits your audience to ensure they understand. If people don't understand it doesn't follow they are stupid especially if the majority don't get it rather it is more likely you are communication badly.
I don't really get your point either. Mass education benefits the society as a whole, the better the quality the more the benefit to the civil good. Economic benefits are also part of it as well-you need an educated work force in a modern economy and without the ability to think and develop industry stagnates. It's no accident that the industrial revolution started in countries where education per se was valued or that the mass movements that led to what we now view as the normal type of democracy happened where there was an educated populace to lead the way and spread new ideas.
An uneducated population is easier to control that's why so many religious groups want to restrict education-if people can think for themselves they are less gullible. The biggest threat to religion is a secular well educated society that values religious tolerance and freedom. Those of a right wing disposition argue against the teaching of history beyond learning important dates because they worry about the populace turning round and questioning their authority.
Compulsory education is essential to give all the opportunity to benefit since realistically some parents wouldn't bother without the element of compulsion, or if it wasn't state funded would be unable to provide the level of education they would like for their children.
It might be better if you could state your reasons for believing it should not be compulsory at least to secondary level or is there some reason you think an illiterate populace is a benefit to anyone. I have difficulty understanding why someone would think it a bad idea. Perhaps you could explain why you consider it is (if indeed that is what you are trying to say). Personally I think compulsory state funded education to at least a basic level is essential with access to further education open to all regardless of means -it's far too important to be left to market forces or any demented right wing philosophy. Have private education as well but don't subsidise them in any way i.e take away the charitable status if all so called independent schools. If people want privilege then let them pay for it. If they want separate faith based education that should also be outside the state scheme and not supported in any way.
posted by george
There is some contraversy over academies, however far more private investment is brought in offering much better value to the tax payer, and to the students.
Business should have no say in education or any part in it's funding It's far too important for that. Value is a relative term. Interestingly enough that legislation got through thanks to scots MP,s voting on something that did not affect scotland. They wouldn't have dared if it did because of the ructions it would have caused.
posted by K snyder
I was thinking about this the other night...I'm wondering if the schools in the UK have extra incentive to kids who take an interest in playing football...Here in the U.S many kids get scholarships for sports...Is this being implemented in the UK?...
I'm sure there are a significant amount of kids who take an interest in playing football/soccer or many other sports within the UK...
No we don't. It gets confusing comparing the states and Uk when it comes to education. Schooling here is compulsory to age 16. Some stay on another year or so and then go on to university or college while others might go to college at 16 for vocational skills courses-engineering and the like. We have primary school, secondary school and then tertiary education (college or university). We tend to talk about leaving school and then going on whereas in America I get the impression that you use the word school for university and college as well. With us there is a clear distinction.
from the oxford english dictionary
sophomore
/soffmor/
• noun N. Amer. a second-year university or high-school student.
— DERIVATIVES sophomoric adjective.
This for example is a term we don't use. You are either at high school (secondary education) or at university or college (tertiary). Same with freshman-that means university not also at and /or school. Well, anyway, I find it confusing.
Same with schools, what you call public schools are here all state funded. What you call private schools here are called public schools.
We don't have sports scholarships. You parents either pay for your university education or there are grants available although Thatcher and now new labour have done much to get away from the ideal that it should be available to all based on ability rather than means. (kind of lost touch with the way it works now so i mat be wrong there) . Spot and I live in different countries with different education systems-the scots one being of course the vastly superior although spot having had an english education is probably too ignorant to appreciate that point:sneaky:
Why is it that I can never ever manage to get my question understood when I try to ask about the tax system paying for education? I write it a hundred ways and nobody ever reads what I write, they just assume they know what I asked.
Perhaps if you had benefited from a decent education you would be better able to express yourself in a manner people could comprehend:D
In a situation were you are trying to communicate it is up to you to express yourself in a way that suits your audience to ensure they understand. If people don't understand it doesn't follow they are stupid especially if the majority don't get it rather it is more likely you are communication badly.
I don't really get your point either. Mass education benefits the society as a whole, the better the quality the more the benefit to the civil good. Economic benefits are also part of it as well-you need an educated work force in a modern economy and without the ability to think and develop industry stagnates. It's no accident that the industrial revolution started in countries where education per se was valued or that the mass movements that led to what we now view as the normal type of democracy happened where there was an educated populace to lead the way and spread new ideas.
An uneducated population is easier to control that's why so many religious groups want to restrict education-if people can think for themselves they are less gullible. The biggest threat to religion is a secular well educated society that values religious tolerance and freedom. Those of a right wing disposition argue against the teaching of history beyond learning important dates because they worry about the populace turning round and questioning their authority.
Compulsory education is essential to give all the opportunity to benefit since realistically some parents wouldn't bother without the element of compulsion, or if it wasn't state funded would be unable to provide the level of education they would like for their children.
It might be better if you could state your reasons for believing it should not be compulsory at least to secondary level or is there some reason you think an illiterate populace is a benefit to anyone. I have difficulty understanding why someone would think it a bad idea. Perhaps you could explain why you consider it is (if indeed that is what you are trying to say). Personally I think compulsory state funded education to at least a basic level is essential with access to further education open to all regardless of means -it's far too important to be left to market forces or any demented right wing philosophy. Have private education as well but don't subsidise them in any way i.e take away the charitable status if all so called independent schools. If people want privilege then let them pay for it. If they want separate faith based education that should also be outside the state scheme and not supported in any way.
posted by george
There is some contraversy over academies, however far more private investment is brought in offering much better value to the tax payer, and to the students.
Business should have no say in education or any part in it's funding It's far too important for that. Value is a relative term. Interestingly enough that legislation got through thanks to scots MP,s voting on something that did not affect scotland. They wouldn't have dared if it did because of the ructions it would have caused.
posted by K snyder
I was thinking about this the other night...I'm wondering if the schools in the UK have extra incentive to kids who take an interest in playing football...Here in the U.S many kids get scholarships for sports...Is this being implemented in the UK?...
I'm sure there are a significant amount of kids who take an interest in playing football/soccer or many other sports within the UK...
No we don't. It gets confusing comparing the states and Uk when it comes to education. Schooling here is compulsory to age 16. Some stay on another year or so and then go on to university or college while others might go to college at 16 for vocational skills courses-engineering and the like. We have primary school, secondary school and then tertiary education (college or university). We tend to talk about leaving school and then going on whereas in America I get the impression that you use the word school for university and college as well. With us there is a clear distinction.
from the oxford english dictionary
sophomore
/soffmor/
• noun N. Amer. a second-year university or high-school student.
— DERIVATIVES sophomoric adjective.
This for example is a term we don't use. You are either at high school (secondary education) or at university or college (tertiary). Same with freshman-that means university not also at and /or school. Well, anyway, I find it confusing.
Same with schools, what you call public schools are here all state funded. What you call private schools here are called public schools.
We don't have sports scholarships. You parents either pay for your university education or there are grants available although Thatcher and now new labour have done much to get away from the ideal that it should be available to all based on ability rather than means. (kind of lost touch with the way it works now so i mat be wrong there) . Spot and I live in different countries with different education systems-the scots one being of course the vastly superior although spot having had an english education is probably too ignorant to appreciate that point:sneaky:
Compulsory education
gmc;936435 wrote: posted by K snyder
No we don't. It gets confusing comparing the states and Uk when it comes to education. Schooling here is compulsory to age 16. Some stay on another year or so and then go on to university or college while others might go to college at 16 for vocational skills courses-engineering and the like. We have primary school, secondary school and then tertiary education (college or university). We tend to talk about leaving school and then going on whereas in America I get the impression that you use the word school for university and college as well. With us there is a clear distinction.
from the oxford english dictionary
This for example is a term we don't use. You are either at high school (secondary education) or at university or college (tertiary). Same with freshman-that means university not also at and /or school. Well, anyway, I find it confusing.
Same with schools, what you call public schools are here all state funded. What you call private schools here are called public schools.
We don't have sports scholarships. You parents either pay for your university education or there are grants available although Thatcher and now new labour have done much to get away from the ideal that it should be available to all based on ability rather than means. (kind of lost touch with the way it works now so i mat be wrong there) . Spot and I live in different countries with different education systems-the scots one being of course the vastly superior although spot having had an english education is probably too ignorant to appreciate that point:sneaky:
Well it had seemed to me that a very significant proportion of youths in the UK take an interest in football/soccer, and if they take an interest in other sports as well that's even more incentive...
I thought that it might prove to romanticize schooling in the UK if you were to incorporate the mandating of schooling, and a set academic expectation associated in such an instance, in regards to the playing of sports which would possibly higher the educational standards within the UK...
Sort of kids have to make the grade before they're aloud to compete in sports...
No we don't. It gets confusing comparing the states and Uk when it comes to education. Schooling here is compulsory to age 16. Some stay on another year or so and then go on to university or college while others might go to college at 16 for vocational skills courses-engineering and the like. We have primary school, secondary school and then tertiary education (college or university). We tend to talk about leaving school and then going on whereas in America I get the impression that you use the word school for university and college as well. With us there is a clear distinction.
from the oxford english dictionary
This for example is a term we don't use. You are either at high school (secondary education) or at university or college (tertiary). Same with freshman-that means university not also at and /or school. Well, anyway, I find it confusing.
Same with schools, what you call public schools are here all state funded. What you call private schools here are called public schools.
We don't have sports scholarships. You parents either pay for your university education or there are grants available although Thatcher and now new labour have done much to get away from the ideal that it should be available to all based on ability rather than means. (kind of lost touch with the way it works now so i mat be wrong there) . Spot and I live in different countries with different education systems-the scots one being of course the vastly superior although spot having had an english education is probably too ignorant to appreciate that point:sneaky:
Well it had seemed to me that a very significant proportion of youths in the UK take an interest in football/soccer, and if they take an interest in other sports as well that's even more incentive...
I thought that it might prove to romanticize schooling in the UK if you were to incorporate the mandating of schooling, and a set academic expectation associated in such an instance, in regards to the playing of sports which would possibly higher the educational standards within the UK...
Sort of kids have to make the grade before they're aloud to compete in sports...
Compulsory education
K.Snyder;937728 wrote: Well it had seemed to me that a very significant proportion of youths in the UK take an interest in football/soccer, and if they take an interest in other sports as well that's even more incentive...
I thought that it might prove to romanticize schooling in the UK if you were to incorporate the mandating of schooling, and a set academic expectation associated in such an instance, in regards to the playing of sports which would possibly higher the educational standards within the UK...
Sort of kids have to make the grade before they're aloud to compete in sports...
College/university sports are no big deal in the UK unlike the US so there's no financial incentive. Nobody is interested in watching college sports. Further education establishments want be known for their academic excellence not their sporting. Why would you need to romanticise education? It gives people a start in life and is free up to a point. where you go from there is up to you. It's engineering and science and learning per se we need to romanticise and attract people to, not sports. Most of the major scientific developments have come from countries where education and scientific research was valued for it's own sake. business and the economy benefits from that but most is not capable of predicting what research will lead to any benefit. Lasers, for example, as used daily in epos systems in supermarkets, were invented by scientists following their curiosity not ones looking for new products. Nobody "invented" electronic scanning it was an application of a discovery. Same with computers and TV etc etc.
I thought that it might prove to romanticize schooling in the UK if you were to incorporate the mandating of schooling, and a set academic expectation associated in such an instance, in regards to the playing of sports which would possibly higher the educational standards within the UK...
Sort of kids have to make the grade before they're aloud to compete in sports...
College/university sports are no big deal in the UK unlike the US so there's no financial incentive. Nobody is interested in watching college sports. Further education establishments want be known for their academic excellence not their sporting. Why would you need to romanticise education? It gives people a start in life and is free up to a point. where you go from there is up to you. It's engineering and science and learning per se we need to romanticise and attract people to, not sports. Most of the major scientific developments have come from countries where education and scientific research was valued for it's own sake. business and the economy benefits from that but most is not capable of predicting what research will lead to any benefit. Lasers, for example, as used daily in epos systems in supermarkets, were invented by scientists following their curiosity not ones looking for new products. Nobody "invented" electronic scanning it was an application of a discovery. Same with computers and TV etc etc.