god help us

[eastaugh36]

oh god can we please get off this topic ! Liberal won and thats that !

 

[LibsWin]

Originally posted by eastaugh36
oh god can we please get off this topic ! Liberal won and thats that !

I agree!!!!!

Democracy..... ya gotta love it!

 

[BJ]

Yeah true to some independent schools but not true to all.
Just because the independent school up the road from u is building all this stuff doesnt mean that the local catholic school in derby doesnt need some cash.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by BJ
Yeah true to some independent schools but not true to all.
Just because the independent school up the road from u is building all this stuff doesnt mean that the local catholic school in derby doesnt need some cash.

Well that's exactly right - it needs to be on a needs baiss

I was at Scotch Collge in Adelaide recently and they had a building appeal which was close to raising $4 million

This is giong to give them even better facilities than they have now

THey should not be getting Government funding

Its unfair that public shcool kids have to compete with students who have much better facilities

I went to a private school myself but never saw a computer never mind use one and our psyichs experiments consisted of rolling a trolley down a desk!!!!

That's what cost me straight A's in year 12 I am sure!!

That will teach me for living in the country.

 

[Frodo]

Let me get this right. You are saying that if a group of parents gets together (p+c committee perhaps) and raises funds so that facilities are improved at their school then the school should have government funding reduced

And in doing so that means that schools who do no fundraising get more money

Don't you think that you would kill off fundraising completely?

This is exactly what happened in Communist Russia and the quality of education was reduced to the lowest common denominator in all schools apart from the elite ones where children went after an assessment of high intellect as five year olds.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Frodo
Let me get this right. You are saying that if a group of parents gets together (p+c committee perhaps) and raises funds so that facilities are improved at their school then the school should have government funding reduced

If they don't NEED it, yes. Money should be spent where it's needed.

And in doing so that means that schools who do no fundraising get more money

Do no fundraising or are unable to raise funds? There's a world of difference. Quality education should be available to all regardless of their financial situation.

Don't you think that you would kill off fundraising completely?

It didn't prior to the current scheme being introduced so why would it now?

This is exactly what happened in Communist Russia and the quality of education was reduced to the lowest common denominator in all schools apart from the elite ones where children went after an assessment of high intellect as five year olds.

I'll bet who their parents were had nothing to do with it either. I'm sure Joe Stalins kid went to "fu cknuckle elementary"! In Russia the kids of the Elite went to the best schools and the hio poloi ate **** and died.

The example you've given is exactly the problem we'll end up with in Australia. Rich kids will go to great schools because their parents fund them whilst poor kids will get a crap education because their parents are struggling just to make ends meet, let alone raise 4 mill for a "building fund". That sounds like the Australian fair go for all to me. Not.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Frodo
Let me get this right. You are saying that if a group of parents gets together (p+c committee perhaps) and raises funds so that facilities are improved at their school then the school should have government funding reduced

And in doing so that means that schools who do no fundraising get more money

Don't you think that you would kill off fundraising completely?

This is exactly what happened in Communist Russia and the quality of education was reduced to the lowest common denominator in all schools apart from the elite ones where children went after an assessment of high intellect as five year olds.

Taking over from Dan as king of the rolleyes???

I agree with Dave

Schools such as the one I refer to have a majority of parents who are more affluent and can afford to give money

Parents at MANY state schools can't

The bottom line is kids should be able to get an even chance that doesn't depend on how rich you are

Sorry I forgot according to you there is an even playing field.


Trying to compare funding of Australian schools wiht communism is very silly. You seem to be obsessed with communism.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Jars458
You seem to be obsessed with communism.

Frodo McCarthy?

(joke joyce)

 

[BJ]

The idea of everyone getting an equal education sounds great but I doubt it is really possible.
Like Frodo said, if the government only gives money too the schools that cant afford to fund raise then no schools will bother fundraising. It also sounds sort of unfair that some schools should have to work hard through fundraising to earn their money whereas other schools just get it off the government.
Also, fundraising doesnt always consist of the parents handing out cash, it could mean going around to houses asking people to buy freddo frogs or malteasers. You can do this wether you are rich or poor.
BJ

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by BJ
Like Frodo said, if the government only gives money too the schools that cant afford to fund raise then no schools will bother fundraising.

Crap. The school I went to 20 years ago did not receive the sort of funding that the current government is handing out and it did bother to fundraise. And did it quite well because the parents of most of the kids that went there were pretty well off.

It also sounds sort of unfair that some schools should have to work hard through fundraising to earn their money whereas other schools just get it off the government.

Open your eyes and read what's being posted. It's not a matter of effort, it's a matter that some parents are unable to raise the sort of funds that others are because they spend ALL of their money just surviving.

Also, fundraising doesnt always consist of the parents handing out cash, it could mean going around to houses asking people to buy freddo frogs or malteasers. You can do this wether you are rich or poor.

When was the last time someone raised 4 million dollars selling freddo frogs?

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by BJ
The idea of everyone getting an equal education sounds great but I doubt it is really possible.
Like Frodo said, if the government only gives money too the schools that cant afford to fund raise then no schools will bother fundraising. It also sounds sort of unfair that some schools should have to work hard through fundraising to earn their money whereas other schools just get it off the government.
Also, fundraising doesnt always consist of the parents handing out cash, it could mean going around to houses asking people to buy freddo frogs or malteasers. You can do this wether you are rich or poor.
BJ

And imagine the outcry when a kid gets molested while going round selling freddo frogs

 

[Frodo]

Both my boys went around selling chocolate bars for school, cricket club and footy club. No molesting problems.
We also arranged sausage sizzles and quiz nights for school amenities.
There were single parent mothers and parents working long hours to get their kids thru private school. They took no holidays in Bali etc and preferred giving an education to their kids to smoking and drinking.

I'll agree to a certain extent with the communist input ( and I believe in calling a spade a spade), those who inherit money or win lotto etc, are plain lucky and don't really deserve to give their kids a top schooling.

However, excluding them we come to those who studied hard, worked hard and made money that is theirs to do as they wish.
Now I know a heap of parents with kids in low standard schools that smoke $60 a week and drink $100 + a week in booze, go out regularly and have graeat holidays. Now they choose how to spend that money so I have no disagreement with them, but don't castigate the people who work their butts off and sacrifice a lot to give their kids a decent education. And if a bit of fund raising helps get extra facilities then good on them.

Now I do realise that there are some that are so unfortunate that they cannot afford to send their kids to a decent school and I do think we need to be benevolent in real cases but here's the rub :-

Why can't the school system be improved so all can get a good education? You see the margin between the top private schools and bottom public schools is far too big. Why?
Well you're all going to guess what I'm going to say aren't you!!!

Socialism and trade unionism...hand in hand.

It's all about standards. Getting rid of weak teachers. Instilling discipline, dress standards and an ethos about caring for each other. Now the unions will not allow disciplining of teachers and our socialist society will not allow disciplining of children. Golf courses are full of teachers at 3:30pm.....not from private schools though. If you want to raise the bar of school standards then taking the lead weights of trade unionism and socialism from each end will help.

Think about it. The trade unions and socialist party are the supporters of the poorer paid and disadvantaged. If you send your child to a school where socialism and trade unionism is the ethos then where in society do you expect your child to end up?
Or at least the vast majority of then!

And many people realise exactly that and work their butts off to drag their children up a notch and away from that environment, can you blame them?

So if you really do care about a more level playing field and raising the bar of excellence of education then it is imperative that trade unionism and socialism is irradicated from the teaching fraternity.

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Frodo
Both my boys went around selling chocolate bars for school, cricket club and footy club. No molesting problems.
We also arranged sausage sizzles and quiz nights for school amenities.
There were single parent mothers and parents working long hours to get their kids thru private school. They took no holidays in Bali etc and preferred giving an education to their kids to smoking and drinking.

I'll agree to a certain extent with the communist input ( and I believe in calling a spade a spade), those who inherit money or win lotto etc, are plain lucky and don't really deserve to give their kids a top schooling.

However, excluding them we come to those who studied hard, worked hard and made money that is theirs to do as they wish.
Now I know a heap of parents with kids in low standard schools that smoke $60 a week and drink $100 + a week in booze, go out regularly and have graeat holidays. Now they choose how to spend that money so I have no disagreement with them, but don't castigate the people who work their butts off and sacrifice a lot to give their kids a decent education. And if a bit of fund raising helps get extra facilities then good on them.

Now I do realise that there are some that are so unfortunate that they cannot afford to send their kids to a decent school and I do think we need to be benevolent in real cases but here's the rub :-

Why can't the school system be improved so all can get a good education? You see the margin between the top private schools and bottom public schools is far too big. Why?
Well you're all going to guess what I'm going to say aren't you!!!

Socialism and trade unionism...hand in hand.

It's all about standards. Getting rid of weak teachers. Instilling discipline, dress standards and an ethos about caring for each other. Now the unions will not allow disciplining of teachers and our socialist society will not allow disciplining of children. Golf courses are full of teachers at 3:30pm.....not from private schools though. If you want to raise the bar of school standards then taking the lead weights of trade unionism and socialism from each end will help.

Think about it. The trade unions and socialist party are the supporters of the poorer paid and disadvantaged. If you send your child to a school where socialism and trade unionism is the ethos then where in society do you expect your child to end up?
Or at least the vast majority of then!

And many people realise exactly that and work their butts off to drag their children up a notch and away from that environment, can you blame them?

So if you really do care about a more level playing field and raising the bar of excellence of education then it is imperative that trade unionism and socialism is irradicated from the teaching fraternity.

Socialism and Comunism to blame ? Then it would be the same in health wouldn't it ?

Perhaps not
Doctors and nurses in public hospitals working their arses off for godawful long hours while their counterparts mostly sit on their arses in private hospitals full of emplty beds. Meanwhile our government just gives private health handouts without requiring them to fill thir hospitals, actually train their own doctors or treat people for real ilnesses which aren't quite so profitable.

I don'r know much about education (yet) but I'm sure when I do I will see it through different eyes than you.

Regards

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
I don'r know much about education (yet) but I'm sure when I do I will see it through different eyes than you.

You can't argue with ideolgues Pess, they are not capable of seeing that other pov's have any merit.

 

[RogerC]

Is there any real evidence that government funding actually lowers the fees private schools charge? Surely as with any commodity they would keep the fees as large as can be commensurate with filling their classes. Funding serves as a handy top up to buy more goodies - that's my bet.

I've said elsewhere that if they find the enrolment rate dropping they won't close; they'll reduce fees and cut back on all their fringe benefiits - sports stadiums, massive halls, oveseas trips, etc.

The pro argument seems to be largely about keeping education affordable in private schools. Nice ideal, but I think the reality is about giving as much money to them as the electorate allows.

Perhaps if funding to private schools is linked with some kind of agreement that said funding needs to be demonstably linked to lower fees and/or scholarships - and give them numbers to work with - I'd be much more inclined to accept it.

Merely saying that funding for private schools keeps fees lower is pie-in-the-sky stuff.

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Dave


You can't argue with ideolgues Pess, they are not capable of seeing that other pov's have any merit.

So its ideological to think there's something wrong when a private docter says 'how are you' oneco or twice while in hospital then sends you a bill for several hundred dollars.

The US is the most privatised health system in the world and its also the least efficient.

In britain the left wing ideologs nationalised everything in the 50s and the right wing privatised everything in the 80's. Here in Oz its abit more pragmatic but the current mob are throwoing taxpayers money in private health rebates for questionable outcomes.

 

[Chilli Afterglow]

Originally posted by Pessimistic


<snip>
Here in Oz its abit more pragmatic but the current mob are throwoing taxpayers money in private health rebates for questionable outcomes.

Not sure the objective is questionable. What they are clearly trying to do is turn the health system back to the way it was during the 80's and early 90's, when the whole thing seemed to work fairly well. The numbers in private insurance were solid, which meant that neither system to too stretched.

As a fall out from the lean economic times, people generally were no longer able to afford the insurance and dropped out. As these numbers increased, so to did the premiums rise (as the insurance companies were trying to maintain their bottom lines).

This had the effect of spiralling with increasingly more being forced out due to the increase. The more that dropped out, the greater the load on the public system, which it wasn't really able to handle.

Costello's bribes are quite blatantly an attempt to lift the numbers in private coverage back up, ultimately easing the burden on the taxpayer and the public hospitals system.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
So its ideological to think there's something wrong when a private docter says 'how are you' oneco or twice while in hospital then sends you a bill for several hundred dollars.

No, it's ideological to blame the problems in our schools on our "socilist" society and trade unions. That's what I was referring to, not you

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Dave


No, it's ideological to blame the problems in our schools on our "socilist" society and trade unions. That's what I was referring to, not you

ie it's ideological to blame the problems in our shools on the ideologists of socialism and union power

That's the whole problem,ame as communism. The idea is sound but in practice it is pie in the sky ideology and until the left wing loonies get their heads out of the clouds and do/say something that has practical significance they will remain an envcumbrance upon not only schooling but society as a whole.


ps.....Average wage at Ansett was $97,000 a year. Well done unions and we wonder why they went bankrupt!

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

Originally posted by Frodo




ps.....Average wage at Ansett was $97,000 a year. Well done unions and we wonder why they went bankrupt!

I dont wonder at all Frodo, first your magical coalition government allowed an under capitalised Air New Zealand to buy Ansett, then your wonderful coalition Government lobbied to stop Singapore Airlines buying Ansett ....... 2 MAJOR reasons Aansett collapsed ..... but its easier to union bash isnt it?.lol

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Chilli Afterglow


Not sure the objective is questionable. What they are clearly trying to do is turn the health system back to the way it was during the 80's and early 90's, when the whole thing seemed to work fairly well. The numbers in private insurance were solid, which meant that neither system to too stretched.

As a fall out from the lean economic times, people generally were no longer able to afford the insurance and dropped out. As these numbers increased, so to did the premiums rise (as the insurance companies were trying to maintain their bottom lines).

This had the effect of spiralling with increasingly more being forced out due to the increase. The more that dropped out, the greater the load on the public system, which it wasn't really able to handle.

Costello's bribes are quite blatantly an attempt to lift the numbers in private coverage back up, ultimately easing the burden on the taxpayer and the public hospitals system.

Perhaps peple were leving private health because the industry needed a big shake up. Now they are being propped up and probably becoming more inefficient by the day.

I get sick of left wing being seen as too ideologiacal. The right wing is equally as loony. They are protecting their own. When public health first came in (and we all now agree it's a good thing)
Yet doctors fought it tooth and nail.

Why was it bad for the average wage at ansett to be $97,000 ? The average would be high due to the amount pilots get paid. Uninin bashers never seem to discuss the cosy arrangements doctors, Lawyers etc get because they have a 'closed shop'

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by BUBBALOUIS


I dont wonder at all Frodo, first your magical coalition government allowed an under capitalised Air New Zealand to buy Ansett, then your wonderful coalition Government lobbied to stop Singapore Airlines buying Ansett ....... 2 MAJOR reasons Aansett collapsed ..... but its easier to union bash isnt it?.lol

Excuse me but what on earth has the government got to do with the buying and selling of businesses (apart from monopoly control). Air NZ had legal rights to buy Ansett if they wanted to. It was not a matter for government at all, at least as long as we don't have a politbureau as a government!!!!!!!!!!!!

And get your facts right about Singapore airlines. They wanted 49% of Air New Zealand, not Ansett. And Singapore Airlines, Ansett and Air NZ were all foreign owned. What the government lobbied for was what was best for Qantas, our national airline. Now I would have thought that doing your best for our national interests is good government.
So the FACT is that the government was NOT amajor reason Ansett collapsed.

Ansett was a foreign owned company with bad management who were controlled by trade unions that had pushed costs up so high that without protection they were uncompetitive. That is why Ansett collapsed and if you want further proof just look at the key factor in rescue plans..........new agreements at vastly reduced wages and increased flexibility.

Now look at the new labour leader, Simon Crean. His first press conference and he said that for Labour to become a force again they must wrest control of the party away from the unions.
Now if you don't want to listen to me about the unions or open your eyes to the damage they are doing then listen to your bloody leader!

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Frodo

ps.....Average wage at Ansett was $97,000 a year. Well done unions and we wonder why they went bankrupt!

I don't suppose the executives contribtued to that with their stock options etc etc

It still seems very high to me, not saying its wrong as I don't know but where did you get that figure?

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Darky


Not this western suburbs factory worker!

Having had many bad experiences with unions in my blue-collar jobs, I will never vote for a political party that supports these same unions (PTWU, NUW, CFMEU), and has unions carry out advertising on their behalf.

Hehe this rings a bell, I'm a former CFMEU member.Whilst I was in Sydney I worked in construction & I had no problem with having to pay Union fees as I felt that it was a fair point that I was receiving the benefits that had been hard won over many years from my 'fellow' workers in the Australian construction industry.

What I did object to was hearing CFMEU organisers standing up & making speeches about how they don't want Pommie backpackers working in Sydney taking jobs from Australians but at the same time they were happy to take my Union fees.So basically I was (forced to be) a memeber of a Union that openly racially discriminated against me & didn't value my rights as highly as other members & yet they took my money.

So I agree with ya Darky f*ck the c*nts!

BTW Dipper's Donuts its funny that you blame the 'racist' swing in voting in Australia on pommie migrants when as my experience shows there is a racist attitude to us in Australia whilst no one in England ever grumbles about the large numbers of Aussies working here of 'taking English jobs'.

Secondly your 'liberal blinkers' seem to have blinded you to the fact that it is just as possible to be predujiced against Anglo Saxon pommies as it is towards anybody else.That you can sit there making sweeping generalisations about English people & using generally derogatory language whilst at the same cosidering yourself a champion of fair minded liberalism beggars belief.
In my experience those people that shout about how liberal they are & criticise others for their right wing leanings are usaully in their own way as guilty of intolerance as anyone.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Frodo
ie it's ideological to blame the problems in our shools on the ideologists of socialism and union power

Yes, the same as it would be if someone were to blame "right wing facist capitalist running dog lackeys". And take your rolleyes and shove 'em where the sun doesn't shine boy.

That's the whole problem,ame as communism. The idea is sound but in practice it is pie in the sky ideology and until the left wing loonies get their heads out of the clouds and do/say something that has practical significance they will remain an envcumbrance upon not only schooling but society as a whole.

Educational parity is pie in the sky is it? Socialism is not the same as communism. There are countries that run quite smoothly that consider (and are considered) themselves "socialist".

ps.....Average wage at Ansett was $97,000 a year.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the other one plays "Jingle Bells". 97K, LMAO!!!!!!!!!

Well done unions and we wonder why they went bankrupt!

Oh yes, it was all those evil unions fault. It had nothing to do with successive company management teams bleeding it dry for profit and not re-investing any capital did it? After all as we all know, management can do no wrong can they? It's only those slack arsed working scumbags.

Keep trotting out the dogma Frodo, I guess for some it's an acceptable alternative to thought.