Britain versus The Pope

[Ben Kenobi]

I think this is the same point the third time. There is no "double taxation". If a Canadian chooses to have all their health care looked after in the US should they be exempt from paying any health taxes here?

Yes, I think that should be the case. Everyone should be permitted to opt out if that is what they choose. The outcome is the same, in both cases the health of the person is looked after. I'd argue the person with private care was better looked after. I'd suggest the same would be true of children educated through the private schools.

[Wezil]

Yes, and no. Economies of scale favours a single board, but in terms of cost control, local control would be superior. If people pay the true cost of education, then they are better able to keep costs down, and at the same time, find better ways to educate students.

You should have stopped right here.

Over here, my district has seen around 14 schools close, more than half of the provincial total. The reason being that the overall system is running into problems with margins. By closing the more expensive per student schools, they can keep the costs controlled over the whole. The problem with this is this means that local communities have no education facilities at all.

Our school boards are locally controlled (and elected), public and Separate.

I don't feel this is an acceptable option. I think too often the local schools are treated as a publicly funded community centre, especially in rural areas. What would happen if they didn't have the building maintenance and administrative costs associated with the schools? Is it really necessary to have a whole building for 50 kids, or are there better ways to acheive the same results?

From what I can see, the system is going to move to decentralisation, provisions of teaching materials, and curricular materials via the internet. Holding more classes online, moderated by a teacher who would receive and submit assignments, etc.

I've participated in distance education, and I cannot say that it was inferior to my other classes.

There has been all kinds of this going on in the province (eliminating 13 was only one part of education reform). The real issue with much of what you mention is changing demographics. Many rural schools just aren't needed anymore. The problem is exacerbated however when you are required to keep two publicly funded schools going in the same rural area. That's just insane.

[Wezil]

Yes, I think that should be the case. Everyone should be permitted to opt out if that is what they choose. The outcome is the same, in both cases the health of the person is looked after. I'd argue the person with private care was better looked after. I'd suggest the same would be true of children educated through the private schools.

I've always wanted permission to opt out of cigarette taxes if I agree to simultaneously opt out of the public health system (and those taxes as well of course) and pursue private coverage. The benefit would be mine.

I hear your argument but disagree. It's not an issue I really care enough to spend time on however. I realised this was where the argument would go when I informed BC of the historical funding process (it's different now but let's not even begin on that road).

It's actually a more complicated issue than I care to get into BC.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've always wanted permission to opt out of cigarette taxes if I agree to simultaneously opt out of the public health system (and those taxes as well of course) and pursue private coverage. The benefit would be mine.

Makes sense to me. If a benefit is truly compelling then people will not have to be forced to put their money into it.

[Wezil]

Strange as it may seem, I could never get the government to see it that way.

[BlackCat]

I'm a bit puzzeld by this :


could you please enlighten me ?

[MikeH]

What's your take on homeschooling?

A difficult subject. Generally ok as long as the national curriculum is followed. Against if it's just to keep the kids in an insular religious environment away from normal teaching.

I really don't see the argument against privatisation. It's contrary to freedom of religion. People have the right to be educated in a manner consistent to their religious faith. Education is primarily a parental, not a state duty.

The UK as a state has adopted the principle that full education for every child is a state responsibility, and I support that. I agree the parents also have some responsibility. But, as we know, some parents just aren't capable of responsibly educating their kids for whatever reason. Even just in obvious cases like because they are dead/in prison/drug addicts or whatever.

Kids have the right to learn the same stuff as everyone else. The most current scientific facts, and the values of the nation. Having these filtered through a screen of the religious bias of their parents is not fair on them. eg. In the most obvious case teaching of Intelligent Design as a serious scientific theory shouldn't be allowed in schools, no matter the religious views of the parents. If the parents want to teach that, in their own religious classes and the kid is equipped with the facts on evolution, they can make up their own mind.

Here is the most important point:

Why would any religious person be scared of their kid getting a normal education? Is it because of all the questions it raises about the inconsistencies, hypocrisy and inaccuracies in their own religion?

[Jon Miller]

Normal education teaches biases. It has to. If those biases are very much against the parents, than of course they will be against it.

Think about how americans act towards anything that is 'socialistic'/etc. This is how we are taught.

It is why the Republicans stay in power.

JM

[MikeH]

Yeah, I know. I'm lucky not to be American.

[Ben Kenobi]

A difficult subject. Generally ok as long as the national curriculum is followed. Against if it's just to keep the kids in an insular religious environment away from normal teaching.

Ok.

The UK as a state has adopted the principle that full education for every child is a state responsibility, and I support that. I agree the parents also have some responsibility. But, as we know, some parents just aren't capable of responsibly educating their kids for whatever reason. Even just in obvious cases like because they are dead/in prison/drug addicts or whatever.

So you believe children are the property of the state? I agree that some parents are not responsible, but that's hardly a rationale to say that all children should belong to the state, and that education is a state responsibility. This is why the system right now does a terrible job of educating children. Education must be supported by the parents if it is to be at all effective. No parental support, and you wonder why you get yobs and all.

Kids have the right to learn the same stuff as everyone else. The most current scientific facts, and the values of the nation. Having these filtered through a screen of the religious bias of their parents is not fair on them.

And it's not fair to them to teach those same beliefs through the filter of secular humanism either. Bias is always present. I see no difference between the bias a teacher brings and between the bias a parent brings. What is important is that the material taught is accurate irrespective of personal bias. Teachers are not and have never been wholly neutral.

eg. In the most obvious case teaching of Intelligent Design as a serious scientific theory shouldn't be allowed in schools, no matter the religious views of the parents. If the parents want to teach that, in their own religious classes and the kid is equipped with the facts on evolution, they can make up their own mind.

They should be permitted to teach their child whatever they want on ID, provided the rest of the stuff is covered.

Why would any religious person be scared of their kid getting a normal education? Is it because of all the questions it raises about the inconsistencies, hypocrisy and inaccuracies in their own religion?

Let me ask you something. If you came across a school that taught that the British government was evil and that they brainwashed everyone, would you not find such a school offensive?

Religion is a fundamental part of someone's life. If education on secular topics is contrary to their religious persuasion, then the problem is in the curriculum. Secular simply means 'without religion', not contrary to religion. If the school is teaching that religion is bad, then they are no longer secular, but a religious school, in teaching humanism as a religion.

[Dr Strangelove]

ID isn't a scientific theory, it's a non-scientific reaction to a scientific theory. It would be OK to teach it in a religion class or a philosophy class.

[BlackCat]

Religion is a fundamental part of someone's life. If education on secular topics is contrary to their religious persuasion, then the problem is in the curriculum. Secular simply means 'without religion', not contrary to religion. If the school is teaching that religion is bad, then they are no longer secular, but a religious school, in teaching humanism as a religion.

Children doesn't have a religious persuation on their own - thay actually doesn't have one, so it's fine that they get a secular education. If they at a mature age decides that they want to join one or other religion, fine.

[Ben Kenobi]

Children doesn't have a religious persuation on their own - thay actually doesn't have one, so it's fine that they get a secular education. If they at a mature age decides that they want to join one or other religion, fine.

If a child is old enough for secular instruction, he's old enough to go to church.

[MikeH]

Let me ask you something. If you came across a school that taught that the British government was evil and that they brainwashed everyone, would you not find such a school offensive?

I'd probably feel the same as I did about a school that taught that homosexuality was evil.

[Ecofarm]

Normal education teaches biases. It has to. If those biases are very much against the parents, than of course they will be against it.

Think about how americans act towards anything that is 'socialistic'/etc. This is how we are taught.

It is why the Republicans stay in power.

JM

I think you need to check the political inclination of teachers, both high-school and University. We didn't have any "George W Bush, mmm mmm mmm..." elementary school songs when republicans were in power. Universities are overwhelmingly far left with the exception of the business and perhaps engineering schools. Reality is almost the opposite of what you propose.

If there is any political brainwashing going on, it's the "mmm mmm mmm" crowd; not republicans.