PDA

View Full Version : Homeschooling



Pages : [1] 2

TheJoker
22-12-2008, 12:42 AM
For example, decades of experience has shown that home-schooled kids do better academically than kids taught by government "experts" (http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp)...

Are you aware of any studies that follow-up on the workforce sucess of home schooled children. I have often wondered whether the socialisation process is better or worse for transition into the workplace, where there often more emphasis on group dynamics and team performance.

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2008, 09:18 AM
Are you aware of any studies that follow-up on the workforce sucess of home schooled children.
There are lots of them referenced. It makes sense: educrats are screaming for reduced class sizes so kids can get individual attention: homeschooling is the logical extension of this. And parents can avoid all the silly fads like look and guess and new maths. It's also no wonder that homeschooled kids often win spelling bees and science fair competitions.


I have often wondered whether the socialisation process is better or worse for transition into the workplace, where there often more emphasis on group dynamics and team performance.
Actually, the usual experience is that school is a totally artificial form of socialization, with its age-segregated herds, peer pressure, and bullying, that has no relevance to adult life. The nearest thing in adulthood is prisons.

Kevin Bonham
22-12-2008, 07:05 PM
Are you aware of any studies that follow-up on the workforce sucess of home schooled children. I have often wondered whether the socialisation process is better or worse for transition into the workplace, where there often more emphasis on group dynamics and team performance.

I suspect that the intellectual and learning advantage that all but the least successful homeschoolings have over conventional education is so massive that it would drown out any disadvantages. I have not seen the studies either but I strongly suspect Jono's post above to be right.

TheJoker
22-12-2008, 10:24 PM
I suspect that the intellectual and learning advantage that all but the least successful homeschoolings have over conventional education is so massive that it would drown out any disadvantages. I have not seen the studies either but I strongly suspect Jono's post above to be right.

I agree probably the teacher to student ratio of homeschooling gives a significant academic advantage. Even if there is a disadvantage in social skills (of which I haven't seen any evidence) they can probably be overcome quickly.

Jono how does home-schooling compare in terms of economic efficiency? Obviously the economic cost per student of the teacher is much higher. However the a lot of capital infrastrucutre (buildings, computers etc) already exist in the home and are not utilised for a substaintial part of the day. Administration costs might be less I am not too sure.

Rincewind
22-12-2008, 10:31 PM
Jono how does home-schooling compare in terms of economic efficiency? Obviously the economic cost per student of the teacher is much higher. However the a lot of capital infrastrucutre (buildings, computers etc) already exist in the home and are not utilised for a substaintial part of the day. Administration costs might be less I am not too sure.

I'd be more worried about the ability of the teachers to teach the more technical end of the spectrum. HSC Chemistry, Extension 2 mathematics, 3U languages, etc. And also the infrastructure required for some engineering, and science courses at that level. I assume the number of courses available to a home schooled child is more limited. At most high schools children have the option of at least 2 languages, various science strands, wood and metal work courses, engineering design, etc. If the options are limited what is the cost to the child and society of that reduced choice?

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 12:55 AM
I'd be more worried about the ability of the teachers to teach the more technical end of the spectrum.
But in many government schools, the teachers are not qualified in the areas they teach either. I've known maths teachers whose degrees were in English Lit.


HSC Chemistry, Extension 2 mathematics, 3U languages, etc. And also the infrastructure required for some engineering, and science courses at that level. I assume the number of courses available to a home schooled child is more limited.
Not at all. There are textbooks and teaching manuals for all sorts of subjects, from physics, chemistry and maths to Spanish and Japanese. Sometimes parents and children can learn together. Homeschoolers also have conferences and support groups, as well as access to trained people. For example, I took some through my Raman spectroscopy lab and demonstrated the laser and diffraction grating.


At most high schools children have the option of at least 2 languages, various science strands, wood and metal work courses, engineering design, etc. If the options are limited what is the cost to the child and society of that reduced choice?
In practice, the government school curriculum has been dumbed down, so kids are hardly ever taught English grammar let along foreign, and waste time on PE and PC.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 01:02 AM
I agree probably the teacher to student ratio of homeschooling gives a significant academic advantage. Even if there is a disadvantage in social skills (of which I haven't seen any evidence) they can probably be overcome quickly.
Indeed. Indeed, the problem for most is adjusting from the artificial socialization of the schools to the adult world.


Jono how does home-schooling compare in terms of economic efficiency? Obviously the economic cost per student of the teacher is much higher.
Not so obvious actually. There is such a thing as a diseconomy of scale. Much of the education budget is swallowed by the expanding bureaucracy.


However the a lot of capital infrastrucutre (buildings, computers etc) already exist in the home and are not utilised for a substaintial part of the day. Administration costs might be less I am not too sure.
Most likely. If the government gave homeschooling parents a voucher that was even half the amount spent per government school pupil, more people would be able to afford it, and it would save the government a bundle. But the teachers unions wouldn't like it, although many of the teachers do NOT choose government schools for their OWN children.

Kevin Bonham
23-12-2008, 01:02 AM
I'd be more worried about the ability of the teachers to teach the more technical end of the spectrum.

I've certainly encountered some homeschooling fanatics online who were a real worry in this regard. There is one on my other main forum who is utterly scientophobic and extremely clueless about what science is.

CameronD
23-12-2008, 07:13 AM
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061910.html

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 09:31 AM
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061910.html
"Homeschooling is illegal in Germany under a law dating back to the Hitler era. Homeschooling families in the country have faced increasing persecution in recent years, with police in several cases physically transporting children to school and even removing one teenager from her parent's care."

Adamski
23-12-2008, 10:52 AM
As Jono said, there is no shortage of good resources avaialable for homeschooling. When my wife and I homeschooled our son there were plenty of books, CDs and videos (it was basically before DVDS) available to cover all the subjects we wanted to teach him. My wife had been a Teachers College student and knew lots of the recommended titles. Also, near us was (and still is - its in Brookvale, Northern Beaches NSW) a bookshop which specialised in educational materials and had the books that were part of several curricula. We mixed and matched "secular" books on Maths , English, History, Science e.g. and a U.S. Christian curriculum known as "Alpha and Omega".

Miranda
23-12-2008, 12:24 PM
I would hate to be homeschooled.

I've known a few people who were homeschooled, and they all turned out.... a bit odd.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 12:30 PM
I would hate to be homeschooled.
I hated school, with the regression to the mean, and adulation of thugby and cricket and a correspondingly low regard for chess.


I've known a few people who were homeschooled, and they all turned out.... a bit odd.
I know a few homeschooled children, and they are not bratty and know how to talk to adults. I've known some government schooled kids who are rather odd because their socialization is entirely the artificially age-segregated herds.

Rincewind
23-12-2008, 12:34 PM
Sometimes parents and children can learn together.

AKA the blind leading the blind.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 01:57 PM
AKA the blind leading the blind.
Not if they have the right textbooks and teaching manuals.

And there are plenty of government school teachers who don't know what they're talking about, since they are not qualified in the subjects they teach.

Rincewind
23-12-2008, 02:37 PM
Not if they have the right textbooks and teaching manuals.

Not so. If the teacher as well as the student are group learning then it is clearly a case of the blind leading the blind. I'm not saying you can't learn a subject from a book. However, a knowledgeable teacher who can give instruction, clarify points of confusion and check student understanding is a valuable asset.


And there are plenty of government school teachers who don't know what they're talking about, since they are not qualified in the subjects they teach.

Not being qualified does not necessarily mean they don't know about the subject they are teaching. For example you would feel yourself qualified to teach formal logic even though you have no qualification in that area and many of these "unqualified" cases are in the same boat. They are knowledgeable and interested in the subject and they know (and usually have a qualification in) how to teach. However, I doubt there are many if any cases of a teacher in a school learning the subject from the text book at the same time as the students in their class are. Certainly when a school is doing teacher allocations the most qualified teacher at a school will generally teach the more technically demanding courses.

For example, in a language department there could be two teachers both of whom know French and German but each specialising in one. The German specialist will almost certainly take 3U German (if required) and the French specialist 3U French even though they could cover each other if necessary. And even when cross teaching each would provide a higher quality of instruction than a homeschool teacher who is not fluent in anything but English.

The same is true in a Maths department when they are unlikely to give the teacher qualified in English Lit the 4U class, unless that teacher's knowledge of the curriculum is sufficient to effectively teach it.

Adamski
23-12-2008, 02:43 PM
Not so. If the teacher as well as the student are group learning then it is clearly a case of the blind leading the blind. I'm not saying you can't learn a subject from a book. However, a knowledgeable teacher who can give instruction, clarify points of confusion and check student understanding is a valuable asset.Most homeschooling parents are well ahead of their children who they are teaching - and certainly by the time they get to a lesson they have prepared it thoroughly and are again well ahead of their pupils. Actually, in NSW parents have to prepare well. Dept of Education inspectors assess curricula and lesson plans, as my wife can attest.

TheJoker
23-12-2008, 03:03 PM
Dept of Education inspectors assess curricula and lesson plans, as my wife can attest.

I guess there goes the idea that homeschooling would reduce the need for bureacracy. Coordinating the numerous different "home schoolers" is likely to be a much harder task than coordinating a few large schools.

Adamski
23-12-2008, 03:12 PM
I guess there goes the idea that homeschooling would reduce the need for bureacracy. Coordinating the numerous different "home schoolers" is likely to be a much harder task than coordinating a few large schools.But that bureaucracy is unnecessary.

Rincewind
23-12-2008, 03:14 PM
Most homeschooling parents are well ahead of their children who they are teaching - and certainly by the time they get to a lesson they have prepared it thoroughly and are again well ahead of their pupils. Actually, in NSW parents have to prepare well. Dept of Education inspectors assess curricula and lesson plans, as my wife can attest.

The fact remains that while a lesson plan can be demonstrated and prepared with the help of homeschooling resources. If the student has a pertinent question, a teacher who is learning along with the student is not in the best position to answer it. Hopefully they can research it and find the correct answer together. However, I fear that such an environment might lead to the perpetuation of misunderstandings.

I guess it boils down to the fact that the teacher has not been and is not accessed in any way other than having some curricula and lesson plans reviewed. Therefore the home school teacher has not and does not need to demonstrate any particular facility with the content.

This leads me to remain skeptical of the value of home schooling when it comes to technically demanding subjects and also regarding the variety of subjects that can be reliably taught by the average home school teacher.

My gut feel is home school would be fine for primary level, ok for junior high (years 7 and 8) but start to be strained for middle high school (years 9 and 10) and generally inadequate for senior high school. They may be exceptions to this where the home school teacher is particularly competent in the subjects of interest to the student or conversely when the intending home school teacher is a particularly poor teacher.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 03:17 PM
I guess there goes the idea that homeschooling would reduce the need for bureacracy. Coordinating the numerous different "home schoolers" is likely to be a much harder task than coordinating a few large schools.
Who said that homeschoolers should be coordinated by government bureaucracies?

Another diseconomy of scale in the government schools is that much time of the teachers is spent on trying to discipline unruly kids who are disrupting other kids' learning. As for bullying, only lip service is given to prevention.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 03:21 PM
The fact remains that while a lesson plan can be demonstrated and prepared with the help of homeschooling resources. If the student has a pertinent question, a teacher who is learning along with the student is not in the best position to answer it. Hopefully they can research it and find the correct answer together. However, I fear that such an environment might lead to the perpetuation of misunderstandings.
But it's hardly any different with government schoolteachers who don't know their subject. Primary school teachers are almost certainly not experts in the subjects they teach. And to address your point that they can learn subjects they are not qualified in, the same allowance should be made for parents too.

Also, government schools perpetuate misunderstandings themselves, e.g. in the "social studies" classes, or simply have stopped teaching important things like grammar and phonics.


I guess it boils down to the fact that the teacher has not been and is not accessed in any way other than having some curricula and lesson plans reviewed. Therefore the home school teacher has not and does not need to demonstrate any particular facility with the content.
Government school teachers, at least in America, are among the lowest scoring academically among all graduates. But brighter students are put off by the mindnumbingly boring educratic pap required at teachers colleges.


This leads me to remain skeptical of the value of home schooling when it comes to technically demanding subjects and also regarding the variety of subjects that can be reliably taught by the average home school teacher.
There is nothing to stop homeschoolers seeking out knowledgeable tutors if necessary. Many of these are better qualified than the government school teachers, but are verboten to teach because they haven't gone through the official teachers training courses.

TheJoker
23-12-2008, 03:23 PM
But that bureaucracy is unnecessary.

Only assuming the "home schoolers" are doing the right thing.

Quality education of the nation's children is just as important for every member of society as it is for the child's parents. A poorly educated population will reduce productivity, economic efficiency, incomes, business opportunities, global competiveness etc etc.

In others words it is in my interest that your children are educated properly. If you fail to educate your children properly it potentially creates a drain on my income.

Of course there is no need to assess the actual learning program/curricula unless academic outcomes measured by standardised tests are unsatisfactory.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 03:29 PM
Only assuming the "home schoolers" are doing the right thing.
Yet it's questionable whether the government schools are doing the right thing. But homeschoolers consistently outperform them.


Quality education of the nation's children is just as important for every member of society as it is for the child's parents. A poorly educated population will reduce productivity, economic efficiency, incomes, business opportunities, global competiveness etc etc.
All true. Yet the teachers unions for a long time have fought against accountability, merit pay, and firing incompetents.


In others words it is in my interest that your children are educated properly. If you fail to educate your children properly it potentially creates a drain on my income.
Yet you don't have to hire a poorly taught homeschooler. But you're out of luck if the government schools are churning out graduates who need remedial courses.

But this whole argument could lead to totalitarian impulses. It is in your interest that people are healthy, so should you force people to eat certain foods, ban others, make 30 minutes per day exercise compulsory? Where do you stop trying to control other people's lives?


Of course there is no need to assess the actual learning program/curricula unless academic outcomes measured by standardised tests are unsatisfactory.
Universities having remedial classes shows that something is not right now.

Desmond
23-12-2008, 03:35 PM
Homeschooling seems to me to be inefficient and breaks one of the important things humans have learned; seperation of labour.

An untrained parent can probably muddle his/her way through text books s/he does not understand and service one student in that subject. It will take longer than an experienced teacher who teaches this stuff year in year out, who might simply have to refresh a few things that have changed in the subject matter in the last year. But, and let's not forget this, the teacher is servicing 30 kids. It does not take a genius to work out that this de-centralised model is inefficient. Management 101 - seperation of labour.

If the would-be home-schooling parent is such a fantastic teacher, let them teach another 29 kids and free up those other 29 parents to be productive in other pursuits (that they are good at). If s/he is not a fantastic teacher, let someone else do it.

Rincewind
23-12-2008, 04:01 PM
Primary school teachers are almost certainly not experts in the subjects they teach.

Primary school teachers are experts in the area they teach, that is providing primary level education to children in the 5-12 year old group. To not appreciate this is to not appreciate the importance of expertise in teaching.


And to address your point that they can learn subjects they are not qualified in, the same allowance should be made for parents too.

Firstly cases of this are uncommon. And where it does happen the teacher has some sort of aptitude for the subject they are teaching and also have a qualification in teaching ni the first place.

In the case of the home schooling teacher they often are ask to teach a number of subjects for which they are not trained and so the aptitude problem is more pronounced as they cannot be an unqualified expert in all of them. Also they generally do not have teaching qualifications so they are learning to teach as well as learning the subjects which they are teaching.


Also, government schools perpetuate misunderstandings themselves, e.g. in the "social studies" classes, or simply have stopped teaching important things like grammar and phonics.

Ipse dixit. There is more to English than spelling and grammar but as far as I'm aware students are still required to be able to express themselves in written form which includes spelling and grammar.


Government school teachers, at least in America, are among the lowest scoring academically among all graduates.

Whereas the average parent is not a graduate at all!


There is nothing to stop homeschoolers seeking out knowledgeable tutors if necessary.

It is probably the better option but I doubt it is within the means of most students for all subjects.


Many of these are better qualified than the government school teachers, but are verboten to teach because they haven't gone through the official teachers training courses.

As far as I know anyone can tutor as it is pretty much unregulated unless you work through a big company like Kipp McGrath. Mind you the more you move towards "knowledgeable tutors" and less from the idealistic parent/teacher model, the more homeschooling starts to look like just plain schooling.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 04:02 PM
Homeschooling seems to me to be inefficient and breaks one of the important things humans have learned; seperation of labour.
Separation of labor is all very well, but in practice, kids taught at home do better academically than those taught by "experts" in government schools.

"In theory, theory and practice should agree. In practice, they don't."

Also, the separation is not so clear, since much government money is spent on bureaucracy not teaching, and much teacher time is spent on disciplining and useless stuff like PE and PC.


If the would-be home-schooling parent is such a fantastic teacher, let them teach another 29 kids and free up those other 29 parents to be productive in other pursuits (that they are good at).
Way to go: abolish a major advantage of homeschooling: individual tuition instead of regression to the mean.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 04:07 PM
Primary school teachers are experts in the area they teach, that is providing primary level education to children in the 5-12 year old group. To not appreciate this is to not appreciate the importance of expertise in teaching.
Non sequitur. I appreciate the importance of expertise in teaching; I doubt that government teachers training institutes provide this. Anyone here would have stories of crappy teachers.


Ipse dixit. There is more to English than spelling and grammar
No one denied that. But the educratic fad is that spelling and grammar are "out".


but as far as I'm aware students are still required to be able to express themselves in written form which includes spelling and grammar.
Good grief, look at all the spelling and grammatical mistakes in many kids these days. Why do unis have remedial courses?


Whereas the average parent is not a graduate at all!
Yet they clearly manage well enough as shown by the results! They can avoid all the timewasting crap in government school curricula and teach real knowledge.


Mind you the more you move towards "knowledgeable tutors" and less from the idealistic parent/teacher model, the more homeschooling starts to look like just plain schooling.
Homeschooling should not be caricatured as rejecting all outside help.

TheJoker
23-12-2008, 04:11 PM
Yet it's questionable whether the government schools are doing the right thing. But homeschoolers consistently outperform them.

That probably is question of resources employed. The home school student is likley to consume more resources. For example if a parent is full-time home school teacher for a single child, then the economic cost per student of teaching alone is roughly $60k (the average annual income).


But this whole argument could lead to totalitarian impulses. It is in your interest that people are healthy, so should you force people to eat certain foods, ban others, make 30 minutes per day exercise compulsory? Where do you stop trying to control other people's lives?.

Trade-offs, education is one case where the spillover costs of poor education are significant and hence why almost all developed economies have complusory education.



Universities having remedial classes shows that something is not right now.

Or that Universities are continually trying increase pre-requiste knowledge for their courses because stuck-up Professors don't like teaching what they consider mudaine subjects.

Has anybody compared the HSC curriculum today with past curriculums. I would be surprised if its not well beyond what it used to be. Information Technology is an example of something that wasn't even a subject 20 years ago. Now a Uni student is expected to well verse in various software application and other IT concepts.

TheJoker
23-12-2008, 04:14 PM
Way to go: abolish a major advantage of homeschooling: individual tuition instead of regression to the mean.

This comes at a significant economic cost. Cost-benefit should be considered.

If every household had one parent stay home to school their children this country's economy would go to the dogs.

Miranda
23-12-2008, 04:18 PM
I was bullied at school when I was younger - I was 2 years younger than all my classmates. However, I got through it and personally feel that it made me stronger.


I know a few homeschooled children, and they are not bratty and know how to talk to adults. I've known some government schooled kids who are rather odd because their socialization is entirely the artificially age-segregated herds.

I know a few homeschooled children, and they don't know how to act towards adults or people their own age.

In regards to some normal-schooled kids being a bit odd: there are many more students that go to normal school than are homeschooled. Some people will turn out strange anyway, no matter if they're homeschooled or go to a normal school.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 04:23 PM
That probably is question of resources employed. The home school student is likley to consume more resources.
Yet the government spends an ever increasing amount per pupil at government schools, for ever-lower quality.


For example if a parent is full-time home school teacher for a single child, then the economic cost per student of teaching alone is roughly $60k (the average annual income).
Where did you get that?


Trade-offs, education is one case where the spillover costs of poor education are significant and hence why almost all developed economies have complusory education.
Good for indoctrination, which is why Hitler abolished it, and successive German governments have decided that this was one of his good policies.


Or that Universities are continually trying increase pre-requiste knowledge
More likely, the prerequisite knowledge standards have dropped.


for their courses because stuck-up Professors don't like teaching what they consider mudaine subjects.
No, they shouldn't have to be teaching basic English grammar or maths, because they school should have done that. Nor should foreign language teachers have to educate kids in grammatical terms they should have learned in English classes.


Has anybody compared the HSC curriculum today with past curriculums. I would be surprised if its not well beyond what it used to be. Information Technology is an example of something that wasn't even a subject 20 years ago. Now a Uni student is expected to well verse in various software application and other IT concepts.
Yet in other areas, it is well behind. A starting uni student would have trouble with many of the 10 grade questions of 50 years ago.

TheJoker
23-12-2008, 04:24 PM
Homeschooling seems to me to be inefficient and breaks one of the important things humans have learned; seperation of labour.

Management 101 - seperation of labour.

Actually it is quite possible to take specialisation of labour to far. At some point extra specialisation is not likley to result in any productivity gains, and my even causes productivity losses.

The best way to judge the effectiveness of labour specialisation is to monitor the results. I suspect that the benefits of inidividually strucutred learming programs and individual tution outweigh the costs of lack of specialisation.

Is primary/highschool education really difficult enough to require specialist teachers for each subject?

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 04:26 PM
I was bullied at school when I was younger - I was 2 years younger than all my classmates. However, I got through it and personally feel that it made me stronger.
Good for you. Not all bullying victims can cope as well, and it affects their schooling. And nor should they have to put up with it. If teachers can't guarantee kids safety, they have no business pushing for compulsory institutional schooling.


I know a few homeschooled children, and they don't know how to act towards adults or people their own age.
My experience is the opposite: a much lower rate of brattiness and immaturity.


In regards to some normal-schooled kids being a bit odd: there are many more students that go to normal school than are homeschooled. Some people will turn out strange anyway, no matter if they're homeschooled or go to a normal school.
Of course. So compare like with like.

Adamski
23-12-2008, 04:26 PM
I was bullied at school when I was younger - I was 2 years younger than all my classmates. However, I got through it and personally feel that it made me stronger.



I know a few homeschooled children, and they don't know how to act towards adults or people their own age.

In regards to some normal-schooled kids being a bit odd: there are many more students that go to normal school than are homeschooled. Some people will turn out strange anyway, no matter if they're homeschooled or go to a normal school.My son was bullied too - and that's what decided us to homeschool him. The final straw was an incident involving a knife and his tie being cut up on a school bus. The school took no action.
Wrt your second point, the kids you know may not have hasd the advantage our son had of a fortnightly get-togetehr of homeschooling kids and parents for varied programmes. This meant the kids in the group all had good social skills. It also gave the parents great opportunity to compare notes and even pick each others' brains for areas where they might have had slightly less expertise. E.g. one parent was a Geography lecturer at Uni and could be consulted on technical geog matters.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 04:27 PM
If every household had one parent stay home to school their children this country's economy would go to the dogs.
Not at all. The unemployment rate would drop. And better educated kids would result.

Adamski
23-12-2008, 04:31 PM
This comes at a significant economic cost. Cost-benefit should be considered.

If every household had one parent stay home to school their children this country's economy would go to the dogs.Not necessarily. In my case I was an IT contractor and at times I had an up to 3 months break between contracts. At such times I could participate in the homeschooling. Indeed, I taught the whole group of kids chess. No opportunity cost lost because I had no paid work at that time. (Nowadays I am a permanent employee but my son is 21 now and no longer requires homeschooling.)

Rincewind
23-12-2008, 04:41 PM
Non sequitur. I appreciate the importance of expertise in teaching;

Yet you believe that the biological function of simply reproducing does provide expertise in teaching.


I doubt that government teachers training institutes provide this.

I think you are out of touch with teacher education. New teachers spend a longtime learning their craft, practicing it under the supervision of experienced teachers before they become practicing teachers.


Anyone here would have stories of crappy teachers.

Yes, just as there is cases of crappy doctors, crappy chemists and crappy engineers. Firstly the cases of crappy teachers are often exaggerated due to the emotional involvement of the story teller (often the parent). And in cases where some fault can be demonstrated the teachers performance can be managed by the school system. The home schooling environment has no such mechanism.


No one denied that. But the educratic fad is that spelling and grammar are "out".

Maybe, maybe not. It is the nature of fashion that emphasis in one area or another changes over time. Undue laxness in the teaching of spelling and grammar is no worse than undue emphasis at the expense of some other part of the curriculum.


Good grief, look at all the spelling and grammatical mistakes in many kids these days. Why do unis have remedial courses?

Often because students make poor career choices in high school and don't take the subjects they need to for entrance into the courses they then wish to study at uni. With mathematics too many students opt for 2U maths and are then surprised that they need 3U as prerequisite for say a computing course.


Yet they clearly manage well enough as shown by the results! They can avoid all the timewasting crap in government school curricula and teach real knowledge.

The results of the small number of home school students don't necessarily mean it is better than a school based system. I suspect the majority of parents choosing to home school they children are very motivated and many have some teaching or technical background.

However this does not mean home schooling can be scaled up to be better for all students and the issue of quality control and lack of choice of topics is still an issue.


Homeschooling should not be caricatured as rejecting all outside help.

Just as teachers should not be caricatured as dimwits who can't teach and don't care about spelling or grammar.

TheJoker
23-12-2008, 04:44 PM
Where did you get that?

Economic costs include opportunity costs. I believe the average annual inocme in Australia is $60K. Therefore staying at home to school a single children costs $60k for the teaching alone.



More likely, the prerequisite knowledge standards have dropped.


No, they shouldn't have to be teaching basic English grammar or maths, because they school should have done that. Nor should foreign language teachers have to educate kids in grammatical terms they should have learned in English classes.

This probably has a lot more to do with the number of students attending University. It used to be only the top students that attended University, alot of people didn't finsih highschool and opted for trades or manufacturing jobs. Nowdays alot more students go to University thereofore there is a regression towards the mean.


Yet in other areas, it is well behind. A starting uni student would have trouble with many of the 10 grade questions of 50 years ago.

I doubt that very much. But considering how the curriculum has broadened it wouldn't surprise me some specialist knowledge cannot not be incorporated. It is far more important that a child can use a computer properly than it is that they know how to manually perform calculus operations.

On occasion I use Fast Fourier Transforms at work. Could I do one manually, No. Do I need to know how to do one manually, No. All I need to know is how to make my software perform one. Just like I don't need to make my own shoes.

TheJoker
23-12-2008, 04:57 PM
Not necessarily. In my case I was an IT contractor and at times I had an up to 3 months break between contracts. At such times I could participate in the homeschooling. Indeed, I taught the whole group of kids chess. No opportunity cost lost because I had no paid work at that time. (Nowadays I am a permanent employee but my son is 21 now and no longer requires homeschooling.)


Just because you chose not to engage in paid work at the time doesn't mean there was no opportunity cost. You could have participated in some form of paid work, or produced some product/service. There are always opportunity costs. In three months you should have been able to earn at least $5,000, cleaning toilets for example. You chose to forego that income in order to educate your children.

In addition, I was talking about the economy as a whole not individual cases. If roughly 50% decided to stay at home to school their kids it would be a disaster.

TheJoker
23-12-2008, 05:10 PM
Not at all. The unemployment rate would drop.

Yes to such a level that it would possibly result in hyper-inflation, due to a wage-price spiral, followed by massive recession/depression.

The reduction in supply of labour would cause the cost of labour to sky rocket. Increased input costs would cause prices increase, thus workers would demand higher wages to stay ahead of the inflation. Eventually their would be a reduction in labour demand as business could no longer absorb the labour costs, Eventually the labour market would stabilise at a point were output was dramtically reduced (otherwise known as a depression).

Feel free to mount a counter economic argument, but be sure to explain how the labour market would react to a severe reduction in supply, how this reaction would affect the price level. Unless you are tryng to argue that the labour force has enough spare capacity to absorb a huge reduction in supply, in which case I'll simply say bollocks.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 05:51 PM
Yes to such a level that it would possibly result in hyper-inflation, due to a wage-price spiral, followed by massive recession/depression.
There is no pleasing those Anointed who want more government control of our lives. like "it takes a village" Joker. Full employment should be a good thing, yet somehow it's called a bad thing when it helps a family stay as an autonomous decision making entity.


The reduction in supply of labour would cause the cost of labour to sky rocket.
Whereas the current situation causes wages to drop because there are more candidates for a job. There was never such unemployment before. And taxes rise to subsidise child care—but only government-provided, not care by a stay-at-home mother or grandparents. Hence the current unjust situation where poorer single-income families are subsidizing richer double-income families. It used to be common for a family to live on one income. Now many working mothers would love to stay at home with their kids, but can't afford to because of the high taxes due to bloated governments.


Eventually the labour market would stabilise at a point were output was dramtically reduced (otherwise known as a depression).
Depressions were actually caused by huge government interventions which created a crippling uncertainty that hindered entrepreneurs and investors. After all, why start a new business or invest when you don't know what rules the government will change next?

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 06:01 PM
Yet you believe that the biological function of simply reproducing does provide expertise in teaching.
No, but going through the prescribed educratic courses don't guarantee it either.


I think you are out of touch with teacher education.
No, you are out of touch with how educrats prescribe fads despite evidence of dropping standards.


New teachers spend a longtime learning their craft, practicing it under the supervision of experienced teachers before they become practicing teachers.
Yeah, right. Yet still many of them don't know their subjects. Or worse, they teach error. This is especially prevalent in English and social studies.


Yes, just as there is cases of crappy doctors, crappy chemists and crappy engineers. Firstly the cases of crappy teachers are often exaggerated due to the emotional involvement of the story teller (often the parent). And in cases where some fault can be demonstrated the teachers performance can be managed by the school system. The home schooling environment has no such mechanism.
Yet it produces results. Kids with crappy teachers or are in crappy schools are stuck there if the parents can't afford an alternative.


Maybe, maybe not. It is the nature of fashion that emphasis in one area or another changes over time. Undue laxness in the teaching of spelling and grammar is no worse than undue emphasis at the expense of some other part of the curriculum.
Not if the other parts are soft things like PE or social studies. We had the infamous article in the journal of the English Teachers where one pillock ranted after Howard's fourth election victory that they hadn't done their job properly.


The results of the small number of home school students don't necessarily mean it is better than a school based system. I suspect the majority of parents choosing to home school they children are very motivated and many have some teaching or technical background.
Typical, explain away the superior results of homeschooled students because they don't fit your theory.


However this does not mean home schooling can be scaled up to be better for all students and the issue of quality control and lack of choice of topics is still an issue.
It's an issue in many state schools, where certain subjects are not available.


Just as teachers should not be caricatured as dimwits who can't teach and don't care about spelling or grammar.
But enough of them are like that, and the teachers unions protect them.

I've been "taught" by bad maths teachers in my time too. E.g. my grade 5/6 (Form 1/2 in NZ) maths/science teacher insisted that it was OK to divide by zero, and preposterously asserted that 3/0=3.

Desmond
23-12-2008, 06:42 PM
Separation of labor is all very well, but in practice, kids taught at home do better academically than those taught by "experts" in government schools.

"In theory, theory and practice should agree. In practice, they don't."

Also, the separation is not so clear, since much government money is spent on bureaucracy not teaching, and much teacher time is spent on disciplining and useless stuff like PE and PC.


Way to go: abolish a major advantage of homeschooling: individual tuition instead of regression to the mean.Unlike you to favour a qualitative argument over an economic argument.

How much "better" do home-schooled kids do? 30 times better? I'll give you a concession for theoretical diminished beauracracy. How about 25 times better?

Desmond
23-12-2008, 06:49 PM
Actually it is quite possible to take specialisation of labour to far. At some point extra specialisation is not likley to result in any productivity gains, and my even causes productivity losses.

The best way to judge the effectiveness of labour specialisation is to monitor the results. I suspect that the benefits of inidividually strucutred learming programs and individual tution outweigh the costs of lack of specialisation.

Is primary/highschool education really difficult enough to require specialist teachers for each subject?Let's say a home-schooling parent has three children, each wanting to learn a different second language. At a school they have immediate access to a teacher, who is probably fluent or near enough to it. At home, they have a parent trying to learn three different languages from scratch.

Which of these two scenarios is likely to provide a better learning outcome for all children?

Adamski
23-12-2008, 09:07 PM
Let's say a home-schooling parent has three children, each wanting to learn a different second language. At a school they have immediate access to a teacher, who is probably fluent or near enough to it. At home, they have a parent trying to learn three different languages from scratch.

Which of these two scenarios is likely to provide a better learning outcome for all children?The 3 children/ 3 separate second languages wished to be learnt scenario has never occurred among the cases I know of. One second language per family should generally be enough.

TheJoker
23-12-2008, 09:11 PM
Full employment should be a good thing....

I was talking about over employment not full employment.:doh:


Whereas the current situation causes wages to drop because there are more candidates for a job. There was never such unemployment before.

Before what?

TheJoker
23-12-2008, 09:21 PM
Let's say a home-schooling parent has three children, each wanting to learn a different second language. At a school they have immediate access to a teacher, who is probably fluent or near enough to it. At home, they have a parent trying to learn three different languages from scratch.

Which of these two scenarios is likely to provide a better learning outcome for all children?

Of course you can find individual examples of where teacher specialisation benefits outweigh individual instruction benefits. But one can just as easily find counter-examples.

For example is it better for a child to learn subtraction from a lecture from a Maths Professor with 100 other students and no opportunity for questionsor individual attention. Or is it better for the child to learn subtraction in one-on-one tutoring from someone who has no maths degree but understands the concept of subtraction.

Te point here being that (according to Jono) the home school students perform better in academic tests. Therefore the trade-off of specialisation for individual tution appears to be in their favour.

Southpaw Jim
23-12-2008, 09:27 PM
There is no pleasing those Anointed who want more government control of our lives. like "it takes a village" Joker. Full employment should be a good thing, yet somehow it's called a bad thing when it helps a family stay as an autonomous decision making entity.
Are you saying that a wage-price spiral wouldn't occur in the face of such a labour supply contraction? Pls explain without playing the straw man game.



Whereas the current situation causes wages to drop because there are more candidates for a job.
This is true of any free labour market, regardless of whether one spouse is homeschooling full-time or not, and occurs in response to demand. Your point?


There was never such unemployment before.
Huh? What, 4.3%?

Rincewind
23-12-2008, 10:20 PM
No, but going through the prescribed educratic courses don't guarantee it either.

There are not guarantees in life consider the comparison...

A course specialising learning theory, teaching techniques, content specialisation incorporating practical components, assessment, etc, etc, etc.

versus

having a child.

The advantage home schoolers have is teacher to pupil ratio. That may be enough to overcome the problems in certain cases and for certain range of teachers and subjects. Is ti the panacea that will work for every student? No.


No, you are out of touch with how educrats prescribe fads despite evidence of dropping standards.

Maybe but I work in an institution that trains teachers and I lecture and tutor students training to become high school maths teachers. So I am closer to the coal face than perhaps you think.


Yeah, right. Yet still many of them don't know their subjects. Or worse, they teach error. This is especially prevalent in English and social studies.

Ipse dixit.


Yet it produces results. Kids with crappy teachers or are in crappy schools are stuck there if the parents can't afford an alternative.

No school is so crappy nor filled with such crappy teachers that children are lost because of it. In general schools are sufficiently well funded and teachers more than adept to teach the curricula required. On top of this the teachers are generally specialist in the fields they teach. A wide variety of subjects are offered, and the school has a number of resources in the form of science labs, engineering/fabrication shops and the like to give the students a well rounded theoretical and practical education.


Not if the other parts are soft things like PE or social studies. We had the infamous article in the journal of the English Teachers where one pillock ranted after Howard's fourth election victory that they hadn't done their job properly.

PE teaches some important lessons on team work, game rules enabling students so wishing to participate in a number of sports throughout their life. Healthy lifestyles are important too and often good habits in this regard are not taught at home.


Typical, explain away the superior results of homeschooled students because they don't fit your theory.

Actually it is exactly what you would expect from my theory. At present you have only a small percentage of the population taking up home schooling. It is natural that these early adopters will comprise the more motivated and competent segments of the market.


It's an issue in many state schools, where certain subjects are not available.

No school offers every subject but most schools offer a wide range of subjects. Certainly much more wide than could be offered by a single, untrained non specialist home schooling teacher.


But enough of them are like that, and the teachers unions protect them.

More bogey man arguments. The fact remains that disciplinary procedures and performance assessment form a part of the organised educational system which is entirely absent from your model.


I've been "taught" by bad maths teachers in my time too. E.g. my grade 5/6 (Form 1/2 in NZ) maths/science teacher insisted that it was OK to divide by zero, and preposterously asserted that 3/0=3.

I think the number of high school teacher would would think 3/0 = 3 would be exceedingly low. Certainly lower than in the general population which is who you think SHOULD be teaching maths.

Desmond
24-12-2008, 05:41 AM
The 3 children/ 3 separate second languages wished to be learnt scenario has never occurred among the cases I know of. One second language per family should generally be enough.Yes that would be sensible, teaching only subjects the parents knows, or taking on one or two new ones at a time. The point is though that the kids don't have the choice offered at schools.

Desmond
24-12-2008, 05:47 AM
Of course you can find individual examples of where teacher specialisation benefits outweigh individual instruction benefits. But one can just as easily find counter-examples.

For example is it better for a child to learn subtraction from a lecture from a Maths Professor with 100 other students and no opportunity for questionsor individual attention. Or is it better for the child to learn subtraction in one-on-one tutoring from someone who has no maths degree but understands the concept of subtraction.Strawman. At early primary level, the important skills for a teacher to have is understanding congnitive development and all those other wonderful things teachers learn at university. Phd Maths not required.


Te point here being that (according to Jono) the home school students perform better in academic tests. Therefore the trade-off of specialisation for individual tution appears to be in their favour.But how much 'better' to justify the reduction in labour and productivity in the broader workforce?

Capablanca-Fan
24-12-2008, 09:01 AM
Strawman. At early primary level, the important skills for a teacher to have is understanding congnitive development and all those other wonderful things teachers learn at university. Phd Maths not required.
It's also not required to go through the mind-numbing pap at the educratic institutes that certify teachers.


But how much 'better' to justify the reduction in labour and productivity in the broader workforce?
What matters is what's better for the kids. Not all families are double income anyway. Are you proposing to force all parents to join the paid workforce and abolish stay-at-home parents and make daycare compulsory?

Southpaw Jim
24-12-2008, 01:32 PM
Are you proposing to force all parents to join the paid workforce and abolish stay-at-home parents and make daycare compulsory?
It'd probably lift GDP :P

In all seriousness, I have no problem with homeschooling, I'd actually like to do it myself - it's just not financially viable for me as the primary breadwinner.

Desmond
24-12-2008, 01:38 PM
It's also not required to go through the mind-numbing pap at the educratic institutes that certify teachers.Did they teach education at the uni where you got your PhD?


What matters is what's better for the kids. I would have thought there would be a direct correlation between what is good for the future of children and the strength of the economy. And you have not answered how much better homeschooling is suposed to be for their results anyway.

Capablanca-Fan
24-12-2008, 06:04 PM
Did they teach education at the uni where you got your PhD?
I lived up the road from the teachers college.


I would have thought there would be a direct correlation between what is good for the future of children and the strength of the economy.
Full employment is good for the economy. Saving government money on the educratic bureaucracy and turning teachers into babysitters for the unruly leaves more for the people.


And you have not answered how much better homeschooling is suposed to be for their results anyway.
I've documented that homeschoolers consistently have better results. So theory needs to adjust to the facts, while the Anointed would rather the facts adjusted to their theories.

Desmond
24-12-2008, 08:52 PM
I lived up the road from the teachers college.Not sure whether that is a yes or a no.



Full employment is good for the economy. Saving government money on the educratic bureaucracy and turning teachers into babysitters for the unruly leaves more for the people.By reducing beauracracy you increase the percentage people get. But by removing lots of homeschooling teachers from the workforce you reduce the size of the pool. What's better, big piece of a small pie or a small piece of a big pie? (with apologies to ggray)



I've documented that homeschoolers consistently have better results. So theory needs to adjust to the facts, while the Anointed would rather the facts adjusted to their theories.Documented where?

MichaelBaron
26-12-2008, 11:04 AM
There is nothing "unique" about the concept of home schooling. If it is possible to study at uni from home, why not at school?

And why should the teaching be necessarily carried out by parents?

MichaelBaron
26-12-2008, 11:12 AM
I was bullied at school when I was younger - I was 2 years younger than all my classmates. However, I got through it and personally feel that it made me stronger.



I know a few homeschooled children, and they don't know how to act towards adults or people their own age.

In regards to some normal-schooled kids being a bit odd: there are many more students that go to normal school than are homeschooled. Some people will turn out strange anyway, no matter if they're homeschooled or go to a normal school.


I graduated from High School at the age of 15. When i was in my final school Year, being 2 years younger than all my classmates was a bit odd at times.

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2008, 11:13 AM
By reducing beauracracy you increase the percentage people get.
Yes. And by drastically shrinking class size you maximise optimal tuition for the individual students' needs, and minimize the hindrances from bullies and disruptive students.


But by removing lots of homeschooling teachers from the workforce you reduce the size of the pool.
This presupposes that they would be in the paid workforce anyway.


What's better, big piece of a small pie or a small piece of a big pie? (with apologies to ggray)
I care more about what's best for the students. Forcing them into an educratic mass-production system and age-segregated herds is hardly optimal.


Documented where?
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp

Davidflude
26-12-2008, 11:17 AM
The real problem with homeschooling is it teaches the children nothing about interacting with people with different attitudes and nothing about social skills.

Furthermore homeschooling tends to be carried out by right wing zealots who think that George Bush has dangerous liberal leanings, that people should be allowed to allowed to possess automatic weapons and spent uranium and cop killer ammunition, that taxation is theft and that the army and police forces should be privatized.

How would a home school child handle being drafted.

Desmond
26-12-2008, 11:58 AM
Yes. And by drastically shrinking class size you maximise optimal tuition for the individual students' needs, and minimize the hindrances from bullies and disruptive students.It goes both ways, they also miss out on hearing questions that other students might ask, miss social development lessons taught through group tasks, etc.


This presupposes that they would be in the paid workforce anyway.Seems pretty self-evident that many of them would be.


I care more about what's best for the students. Forcing them into an educratic mass-production system and age-segregated herds is hardly optimal.The system could use some tweaking, but junking it is probably not a great idea.



http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
Thanks I will go through this. I thought you said that you had documented it though.

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2008, 03:20 PM
It goes both ways, they also miss out on hearing questions that other students might ask,
No real loss. Most of the learning comes from what the teachers tell them.


miss social development lessons taught through group tasks, etc.
And miss peer pressure and bullying ... Group tasks suck anyway.


The system could use some tweaking, but junking it is probably not a great idea.
Give parents a real choice by funding them rather than the educracy.


Thanks I will go through this. I thought you said that you had documented it though.
By proxy, by providing the source.

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2008, 03:29 PM
The real problem with homeschooling is it teaches the children nothing about interacting with people with different attitudes and nothing about social skills.
No problem at all, because the interactions at school are mainly the artificially age segregated herds, bullying and peer pressure that have no benefit to adult life.

This whole argument is hypocritical anyway, because teachers will often yell at their students "You're here to learn not to socialize!" or WTTE.


Furthermore homeschooling tends to be carried out by right wing zealots who think that George Bush has dangerous liberal leanings,
He does. Just look at the way federal spending has blown out under his watch, how he signed the free-speech stifling McCain–Feingold act despite his misgivings about its consitutionality (thus violating his oath to defend the Constitution), how airports are now run like the Gestapo, and how he wants to illegally appropriate TARP money to bail out the Detroit auto industries although the Constitution states that spending must originate from Congress, which has already rejected such a bailout.


that people should be allowed to allowed to possess automatic weapons and spent uranium and cop killer ammunition, that taxation is theft and that the army and police forces should be privatized.
Rather a generalization. At best, this would merely show that homeschooling has its extreme elements. But government schools run by teachers unions can have radical far-left leaning, as shown by the Democratic affiliation in the USA, and shown in Australia by an English teachers journal article saying that the teachers failed in their duty when John Howard was elected for the fourth time. Students can be taught that the USA is Satan, white men are evil, socialism is good, FDR rescued America from the Depression (never mind that it still wasn't over even by WW2, Bush = Hitler, and Castro is a hero, crime is the fault of society, home-owners should be arrested if they hurt an axe-wielding home-invader, and the police are the enemy.

If governments funded parents with vouchers instead of schools (and bureaucracy), then our taxes wouldn't go to a politicized indoctrination system like the current government schools.


How would a home school child handle being drafted.
Many have handled it pretty well, despite your baseless scaremongering.

Kevin Bonham
26-12-2008, 08:44 PM
Furthermore homeschooling tends to be carried out by right wing zealots who think that George Bush has dangerous liberal leanings, that people should be allowed to allowed to possess automatic weapons and spent uranium and cop killer ammunition, that taxation is theft and that the army and police forces should be privatized.

Not sure about this. While homeschooling is often preferred by far right-wingers for ideological reasons it is also often preferred by far left-wingers ditto; indeed most of the few homeschool cases I have known have been lefties (the stereotypical "homeschool hippy" type in some cases.


How would a home school child handle being drafted.

Interesting question. I'd consider either passive draft-dodging or rioting in the streets to be signs of a successful education and anything else to be a bit of a failure really.

Adamski
26-12-2008, 09:32 PM
Interesting question. I'd consider either passive draft-dodging or rioting in the streets to be signs of a successful education and anything else to be a bit of a failure really.Nice one, Kevin. :P

Rincewind
26-12-2008, 11:28 PM
Does that mean Dan Quayle had a successful education? :confused:

TheJoker
27-12-2008, 12:44 AM
Strawman. At early primary level, the important skills for a teacher to have is understanding congnitive development and all those other wonderful things teachers learn at university. Phd Maths not required.

My point exactly at primary / high school level a fairly genralist approach maybe okay. Teachers need not be experts (PhDs) in the subjects they teach.


But how much 'better' to justify the reduction in labour and productivity in the broader workforce?

I dont believe it can be justisfied economically.

Capablanca-Fan
27-12-2008, 04:16 AM
My point exactly at primary / high school level a fairly genralist approach maybe okay. Teachers need not be experts (PhDs) in the subjects they teach.
Quite, so parents can do it too :owned:


I dont believe it can be justisfied economically.
Virtually full employment would be plenty of justification. Of course, there might be some unemployment in the education and welfare bureaucracies.

Capablanca-Fan
27-12-2008, 04:26 AM
Does that mean Dan Quayle had a successful education? :confused:
I guess so, since he was in the National Guard, served 3 terms in the House, and was elected to the Senate twice before he was selected as a relatively young Vice President and is now a successful businessman. But clearly the government educracy wasn't up to much since it provided a mis-spelled scorecard "potatoe", and the kid who managed to spell "potato" right became a highschool dropout and teenage father.

Capablanca-Fan
27-12-2008, 04:27 AM
Not sure about this. While homeschooling is often preferred by far right-wingers for ideological reasons it is also often preferred by far left-wingers ditto; indeed most of the few homeschool cases I have known have been lefties (the stereotypical "homeschool hippy" type in some cases.
In any case, many of DF's bogeyman "right-wingers" would see police and the military as roles the government should stick to rather than withdraw from.

MichaelBaron
27-12-2008, 09:48 AM
The real problem with homeschooling is it teaches the children nothing about interacting with people with different attitudes and nothing about social skills.

Furthermore homeschooling tends to be carried out by right wing zealots who think that George Bush has dangerous liberal leanings, that people should be allowed to allowed to possess automatic weapons and spent uranium and cop killer ammunition, that taxation is theft and that the army and police forces should be privatized.

How would a home school child handle being drafted.

I agree with David, homeschooling can indeed lead to various social probelms for the kids involved. However, if the parents are responsible enough to address this issue (e.g. take kids to playgrups so they can interact with peers) it should not be such a serios problem.

P.S. On reading through the Australian Budget I too feel that taxation is to large extent a theft :)

Capablanca-Fan
27-12-2008, 10:29 AM
I agree with David, homeschooling can indeed lead to various social probelms for the kids involved.
Except that neither of you have the slightest evidence for this. The reverse is true: homeschooling kids learn how to interact with a wide range of age groups instead of the highly artificial age-segregated herds of schools. Public schooling has its own social problems: bullying and peer pressure.


However, if the parents are responsible enough to address this issue (e.g. take kids to playgrups so they can interact with peers) it should not be such a serios problem.
There are many homeschooling organizations as well.


P.S. On reading through the Australian Budget I too feel that taxation is to large extent a theft :)
For sure. Look at the way Chairman KRudd is spending our money on special interest groups like Toyota and Holden (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_rudd_drives_us_broke/). Meanwhile, we haven't an Opposition with Labor-Lite Talkbull in charge.

TheJoker
28-12-2008, 11:17 PM
Virtually full employment would be plenty of justification. Of course, there might be some unemployment in the education and welfare bureaucracies.

We already have virtually full employment (at least for the time being). So taking a large number people out of the workforce is likely to be counter-productive.

Capablanca-Fan
29-12-2008, 12:01 AM
We already have virtually full employment (at least for the time being).
At one time, it would have been considered high unemployment, and it's likely to worsen soon.


So taking a large number people out of the workforce is likely to be counter-productive.
Not likely, since the homeschooling parents are more likely to be stay-at-home anywy.

TheJoker
29-12-2008, 12:12 AM
At one time, it would have been considered high unemployment, and it's likely to worsen soon..

At what time???

Yes it is likley to worsen.



Not likely, since the homeschooling parents are more likely to be stay-at-home anywy.

What I am talking about is if homeschooling were to become the norm.

The economic costs (i.e. including opportunity costs) of homeschooling is likley to be significantly more than for conventional schooling.

I dont think that the lack of economic efficiency is sufficient to prohibit it, but it should be included in any cost-benefit argument.

MichaelBaron
29-12-2008, 01:08 AM
At what time???

What I am talking about is if homeschooling were to become the norm.

The economic costs (i.e. including opportunity costs) of homeschooling is likley to be significantly more than for conventional schooling.

I dont think that the lack of economic efficiency is sufficient to prohibit it, but it should be included in any cost-benefit argument.

I do not think it will become a norm. However, I can see opportunity for homeschooling arrangements increasing in future

TheJoker
29-12-2008, 05:41 PM
NSW Government Schools were ranked 1st for HSC results in 24 of the 38 HSC regions.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,27574,24845087-5006009,00.html

It shows that public education can be more economically efficient and achieve equivalent or superior academic results when compared to private schools, if managed properly.

Adamski
30-12-2008, 08:12 AM
NSW Government Schools were ranked 1st for HSC results in 24 of the 38 HSC regions.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,27574,24845087-5006009,00.html

It shows that public education can be more economically efficient and achieve equivalent or superior academic results when compared to private schools, if managed properly.In NSW when we homeschooled, homeschoolers were not allowed to sit HSC. To me, that was / is silly.

CameronD
30-12-2008, 08:38 AM
In NSW when we homeschooled, homeschoolers were not allowed to sit HSC. To me, that was / is silly.

That is weird. I dont know what they do in Queensland as school grades count more towards OP scores than an end of year exam.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2008, 10:42 AM
In NSW when we homeschooled, homeschoolers were not allowed to sit HSC. To me, that was / is silly.
Of course, teachers unions don't want to be shown up by "non-experts".

Desmond
30-12-2008, 05:04 PM
That is weird. I dont know what they do in Queensland as school grades count more towards OP scores than an end of year exam.There is a test that mature aged applicants can sit to give them an OP equivalent. Possibly this is open to home-schooled kids too.

Adamski
30-12-2008, 08:58 PM
NSW Government Schools were ranked 1st for HSC results in 24 of the 38 HSC regions.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,27574,24845087-5006009,00.html

It shows that public education can be more economically efficient and achieve equivalent or superior academic results when compared to private schools, if managed properly.See http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/in-the-know-debate-rages-over-hsc-legup/2008/12/29/1230399131568.html?sssdmh=dm16.353452

TheJoker
30-12-2008, 09:10 PM
See http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/in-the-know-debate-rages-over-hsc-legup/2008/12/29/1230399131568.html?sssdmh=dm16.353452

Even with their extra special provisions these pivate schools were not always able to out perform there government counter parts.

The real investigation needs to be whether any doctors have issued dodgy certificates, it is hard for a school teacher or government official to deny a student special provisions who has a doctor's certificate.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2008, 09:26 PM
Even with their extra special provisions these pivate schools were not always able to out perform there government counter parts.
Then government schools have nothing to fear from voucher programs, because if they were really doing to well, parents would send their kids there voluntarily.

TheJoker
30-12-2008, 11:01 PM
Then government schools have nothing to fear from voucher programs, because if they were really doing to well, parents would send their kids there voluntarily.

Apart from homeschoolers I doubt the private school industry is interested in a voucher system. They receive significant public funds as is.

I have no problem with vouchers except for the concern of business failures can leave parents and students high and dry.

Should all schools be not-for-profit?

Do you think a open market school system would result in an "oligopoly" or "monopolistic competition" marketplace?

Assuming government schools couldn't Do you think their would be significant competition to keep prices in check?

pax
30-12-2008, 11:37 PM
Do you think a open market school system would result in an "oligopoly" or "monopolistic competition" marketplace?

What, you mean like ABC Learning? How fun would it be for a company to own thousands of schools across the country, run out of money and go bust? I guess homeschooling would get real popular real fast..

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2009, 10:36 PM
Apart from homeschoolers I doubt the private school industry is interested in a voucher system. They receive significant public funds as is.
Yes, John Howard said that our system was superior to the American system in giving more choice for parents.


I have no problem with vouchers except for the concern of business failures can leave parents and students high and dry.
So can government failures, like the atrocious state of the American government school system—that Obamov won't subject his own daughters to.


Should all schools be not-for-profit?
Sounds nice, but there is nothing like the profit motive to encourage good results. Most of the products we like come from profit-making companies, while most incompetence comes from government.


Do you think a open market school system would result in an "oligopoly" or "monopolistic competition" marketplace?
A real marketplace, unlike a government school monopoly.


Assuming government schools couldn't Do you think their would be significant competition to keep prices in check?
I don't know why Pax mentioned a childcare company. But here again, a voucher system would be fairer than government subsidies of daycare centres and not stay-at-home mothers or grandparents for example.
Of course.

TheJoker
01-01-2009, 11:35 PM
A real marketplace, unlike a government school monopoly.

It's hardly a monoploy. But you didn't answer the question which do you think is the most likley market structure under a voucher system. Monopolistic Competition or Oligpoloy?

pax
02-01-2009, 09:05 AM
I don't know why Pax mentioned a childcare company.

I assumed you would know why. ABC Learning wanted to buy primary schools. It was only Government regulation that prevented it. But it also presents a salient lesson on what can happen when a large and highly leveraged commercial company owns hundreds of (childcare/or educational) institutions. If the Government of the day isn't into bailing out essential services, then you end up with tens of thousands of kids high and dry.

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2009, 10:34 AM
I assumed you would know why. ABC Learning wanted to buy primary schools. It was only Government regulation that prevented it.
Starting their own would be reasonable.


But it also presents a salient lesson on what can happen when a large and highly leveraged commercial company owns hundreds of (childcare/or educational) institutions.
Ah yes, the usual lefty line that a single market failure proves that government must be in control of the industry. Of course, lefties would never claim that an even bigger government failures justifies privatization; in this case parental choice aided by education vouchers.


If the Government of the day isn't into bailing out essential services, then you end up with tens of thousands of kids high and dry.
Who says it's an "essential service" for poorer single-income families to subsidized richer double-income families' childcare?

MichaelBaron
04-01-2009, 02:14 AM
I assumed you would know why. ABC Learning wanted to buy primary schools. It was only Government regulation that prevented it. But it also presents a salient lesson on what can happen when a large and highly leveraged commercial company owns hundreds of (childcare/or educational) institutions. If the Government of the day isn't into bailing out essential services, then you end up with tens of thousands of kids high and dry.

I do not see what would be wrong with a private provider buying primary schools. Also, i do not like the idea of government 'bailing out" private enterprises. I can understand disappointment of the kids and their parents in the current situation, but it is just one of those unavoidable instances that do occur from time to time.

TheJoker
06-01-2009, 12:23 PM
I do not see what would be wrong with a private provider buying primary schools. Also, i do not like the idea of government 'bailing out" private enterprises. I can understand disappointment of the kids and their parents in the current situation, but it is just one of those unavoidable instances that do occur from time to time.

So assuming Jono's proposed vocher system sees 90% of schooling being conducted by private enterprise and there are sufficient economies of scale that the market strucuture tends towards an Oligopoly rather than the preferred Monopolistic Competition. Lets say one single firm has 60% market share of all the schools in Australia. If that firm were to go bust and 60% of Australian Children were without schools until another private investor could be convinved to outlay the necessary capital to rebuild the system. Just another unavoidable instance I guess (well not really since the current system avoids that instance quite well).

The other problem with a voucher system would be the massive administration costs ofr such a system. As mentioned private schools already receive substaintial government funding, and in order to function many still need to charge exorbatant fees on top to remain competitive with the government schools. I see no reason why switching from funding the private directly to indirect voucher funding is likley to make any difference.

I have no problem providing direct public funding to quality private schools as it reduces the load on the public system. I would not however support any public funding for homeschooling for two reasons:

1. Homeschooling is economically inefficient

2. Ensuring accountability of those public funds would be a nightmare.

Capablanca-Fan
06-01-2009, 12:45 PM
So assuming Jono's proposed vocher system sees 90% of schooling being conducted by private enterprise and there are sufficient economies of scale that the market strucuture tends towards an Oligopoly rather than the preferred Monopolistic Competition.
Government schooling is a monopoly.


The other problem with a voucher system would be the massive administration costs of such a system.
As opposed to the minute costs of the current educracy :lol: :lol: :lol:


As mentioned private schools already receive substaintial government funding, and in order to function many still need to charge exorbatant fees on top to remain competitive with the government schools. I see no reason why switching from funding the private directly to indirect voucher funding is likley to make any difference.
Obviously, because parents wouldn't have to pay for schools they didn't use, so they would have more money in the pocket.


I have no problem providing direct public funding to quality private schools as it reduces the load on the public system. I would not however support any public funding for homeschooling for two reasons:
Vouchers should fund parents, and leave it up to them how to spend them, including homeschooling.


1. Homeschooling is economically inefficient
Debatable, considering the diseconomies of scale of the government school system, requiring much money into the bureaucracies. It is educationally efficient as well, since the class sizers are smaller; government teachers are always pushing the benefits of smaller classes! Individual attention and the optimal pace for the individual student is a huge advantage over the educratic mass production that reverts to the mean.


2. Ensuring accountability of those public funds would be a nightmare.
Let the homeschoolers test. Ample evidence shows that they perform better than kids in the government schools.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-01-2009, 01:43 PM
Question to TheJoker:

Should government:
Give every child an opportunity to have a quality education?
or
Force every child to have a quality education?

pax
06-01-2009, 03:16 PM
I do not see what would be wrong with a private provider buying primary schools. Also, i do not like the idea of government 'bailing out" private enterprises. I can understand disappointment of the kids and their parents in the current situation, but it is just one of those unavoidable instances that do occur from time to time.

So what do you do, Prime Minister Baron, when the largest owner of Primary Schools in your deregulated education market goes bust, and the auditor says that 300 Schools owned by the company are not profitable? Do you just let tens of thousands of kids go without school until existing schools can grow to meet the demand?

pax
06-01-2009, 03:18 PM
Question to TheJoker:

Should government:
Give every child an opportunity to have a quality education?
or
Force every child to have a quality education?

Question for Igor:

What would you do about an eight year old kid who doesn't want to go to school? Just let them stay home and play video games?

Rincewind
06-01-2009, 03:27 PM
What would you do about an eight year old kid who doesn't want to go to school? Just let them stay home and play video games?

Or perhaps how about an 8-y-o who is working for the family business and whose parents doesn't want them to go to school?

TheJoker
06-01-2009, 04:24 PM
Government schooling is a monopoly.

Funny I see plenty of private schools around my suburb. It's not a monopoly at all.



As opposed to the minute costs of the current educracy :lol: :lol: :lol: .

An OECD study showed that the ratio between funds deployed and academic outcomes was almost identical between private and public school systems.

And in based on the latest HSC results in NSW you would probably find that public schools such as North Sydney Boys/Girls High are far more efficient than there more expensive private counterparts.


Obviously, because parents wouldn't have to pay for schools they didn't use, so they would have more money in the pocket..

Typically you are just porting a US argument over here without realisng that significant public funding goes to the private schools as well. So all Australians pay for all schools.:doh:



Vouchers should fund parents, and leave it up to them how to spend them, including homeschooling..

No need they already do, funding of schools (public and private) is based on enrollments. Vouchers are just an unecessary incumberance.



Debatable, considering the diseconomies of scale of the government school system, requiring much money into the bureaucracies. It is educationally efficient as well, since the class sizers are smaller; government teachers are always pushing the benefits of smaller classes! Individual attention and the optimal pace for the individual student is a huge advantage over the educratic mass production that reverts to the mean..

It not really that debateable, as has been coered earlier in tis thread the opportunity cost of homeschooling are significant.



Let the homeschoolers test. Ample evidence shows that they perform better than kids in the government schools.

And when some homeschoolers fail? What do you do with those that will inevitably take the money without educating their children properly. :doh: :doh:

And homeschooling likley costs siginificantly more a cost benefit analysis isn't likley to favour homeschooling.

TheJoker
06-01-2009, 04:27 PM
Question to TheJoker:

Should government:
Give every child an opportunity to have a quality education?
or
Force every child to have a quality education?

Education should be compulsory. Because not being educated has a significant negative effect on the economy and hence all other citizens.

All the sucessful developed economies have complusory education.

TheJoker
06-01-2009, 04:31 PM
So what do you do, Prime Minister Baron, when the largest owner of Primary Schools in your deregulated education market goes bust, and the auditor says that 300 Schools owned by the company are not profitable? Do you just let tens of thousands of kids go without school until existing schools can grow to meet the demand?

In addition education in some poor suburbs is unlikely to profitable at all. However the spillover benefits of providing education to these children are significant for the economy as a whole. That is why public education is neccesary.

MichaelBaron
06-01-2009, 04:36 PM
So what do you do, Prime Minister Baron, when the largest owner of Primary Schools in your deregulated education market goes bust, and the auditor says that 300 Schools owned by the company are not profitable? Do you just let tens of thousands of kids go without school until existing schools can grow to meet the demand?

There are many other schools available in Australia. As these schools are interested in attracting more students/money they will surely meet the demand! The markplace will simply regulate itself.

One does not have to be a Prime Minister to deal with such issues.

MichaelBaron
06-01-2009, 04:41 PM
In addition education in some poor suburbs is unlikely to profitable at all. However the spillover benefits of providing education to these children are significant for the economy as a whole. That is why public education is neccesary.

You are right...yet you are wrong. You are right that education in poor suburbs is going to be less fancy than in prosperous ones. You are wrong that it can not finanically viable subject to government funding (e.g. voucher system)

TheJoker
06-01-2009, 04:43 PM
There are many other schools available in Australia. As these schools are interested in attracting more students/money they will surely meet the demand!

Depends on the market structure and the rate of return on investment

TheJoker
06-01-2009, 04:52 PM
You are right...yet you are wrong. You are right that education in poor suburbs is going to be less fancy than in prosperous ones. You are wrong that it can not finanically viable subject to government funding (e.g. voucher system)

Yes but the voucher needs to include a normal profit to attract private investment. also in a competitive market schools may represent a significant risk due to the massive capital required to get a school up and running, this means either the profits will have to be high or we are likley to see and Oligopoly market strucutre. Assuming an oligopoly arises these privates firms will be able to extort the government into continually increasing the voucher amount, through threats of closing schools.

pax
06-01-2009, 05:37 PM
Funny I see plenty of private schools around my suburb. It's not a monopoly at all.

If you live in the Western suburbs of Perth, you can have to travel several suburbs away (past several Private schools) to attend a Government high school.

pax
06-01-2009, 05:41 PM
There are many other schools available in Australia. As these schools are interested in attracting more students/money they will surely meet the demand! The markplace will simply regulate itself.

One does not have to be a Prime Minister to deal with such issues.

There speaks someone who has never had to get a child into a school. It is difficult enough to get one kid into a Private school mid-year, let alone ten thousand that were simultaneously dumped onto the market. Remember that in your deregulated education market that no school is obliged to take any child.

pax
06-01-2009, 05:46 PM
Vouchers should fund parents, and leave it up to them how to spend them, including homeschooling.

And presumably homeschoolers do not have to prove that they are qualified and prepared to home school?

MichaelBaron
06-01-2009, 05:55 PM
Depends on the market structure and the rate of return on investment

Sure! Of course the schools should not be mismanaged to make the profit required.

pax
06-01-2009, 06:20 PM
Sure! Of course the schools should not be mismanaged to make the profit required.

But the point is that under your system, if schools are not profitable (e.g in low socio-economic areas) then they don't exist.

MichaelBaron
06-01-2009, 07:52 PM
But the point is that under your system, if schools are not profitable (e.g in low socio-economic areas) then they don't exist.

Under my system (where funding for the students comes not only from individuals but from government agencies) schools will be able to become profitable irrespectively of where they are located if they teach well enough. Sure, some schools will close down because parents will not want to send kids there..but the good schools will stay on.

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2009, 06:12 PM
Funny I see plenty of private schools around my suburb. It's not a monopoly at all.
Because the government partly funds the private schools. This is fairer than only funding one type of schooling: the government schools.


An OECD study showed that the ratio between funds deployed and academic outcomes was almost identical between private and public school systems.
OECD is a corrupt cartel.


And in based on the latest HSC results in NSW you would probably find that public schools such as North Sydney Boys/Girls High are far more efficient than there more expensive private counterparts.
Fine: if true, they would have nothing to fear from vouchers.


Typically you are just porting a US argument over here without realisng that significant public funding goes to the private schools as well. So all Australians pay for all schools.:doh:
I do realise this, as per first paragraph. Layba under Latham wanted to defund some private schools.


No need they already do, funding of schools (public and private) is based on enrollments. Vouchers are just an unecessary incumberance.
It would be more efficient, because it would be parents rather than educrats who control the funding.


It not really that debateable, as has been coered earlier in tis thread the opportunity cost of homeschooling are significant.
Not when it would solve the unemployment problem completely.


And when some homeschoolers fail? What do you do with those that will inevitably take the money without educating their children properly. :doh: :doh:
And when government schools fail? Remedial classes at universities show that they are often failing. Once again, lefties argue, what about market failures, when they are not nearly as catastrophic as government failures.


And homeschooling likley costs siginificantly more a cost benefit analysis isn't likley to favour homeschooling.
It would save heaps on the bureaucracy and unemployment benefits, and it's an ideal way to solve the class size problem that teachers whinge about.

Adamski
07-01-2009, 11:23 PM
Jono, how did the blindfold simul go at Phillip Island? Your score? (Maybe some of your opponents were home-schooled!) I did not want a whole thread for this so asking here.

Desmond
08-01-2009, 08:26 AM
Jono, how did the blindfold simul go at Phillip Island? Your score? (Maybe some of your opponents were home-schooled!) I did not want a whole thread for this so asking here.Interesting that you should raise that in this thread.

If a child wants to learn to play chess blind-folded, would a parent who cannot play chess be just as good a teacher as a master chess player? They have access to teaching guides and course material don't they? They can just learn together as they go can't they?

Adamski
08-01-2009, 08:52 AM
Interesting that you should raise that in this thread.

If a child wants to learn to play chess blind-folded, would a parent who cannot play chess be just as good a teacher as a master chess player? They have access to teaching guides and course material don't they? They can just learn together as they go can't they?I would recommend that any group of home-schoolers wanting their children to learn chess get someone (as in the case of my son's group) among the parents or contacts who can teach chess. I fit this bill as back in Dunedin I used to teach children chess, so I did it for the home-schooling group in the Sydney Northern Beaches with 15 or so kids too. I can't say I ever taught anyone to play blindfold though. If that was required perhaps I would enlist Jono!

slimedog
08-01-2009, 09:15 AM
I have wondered about this too. I used to homeschool my son but he is better in school. I am still homeschooling my daughter, but I wonder if that's the best thing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_O09lH9e0g&feature=channel_page

Desmond
08-01-2009, 09:28 AM
I would recommend that any group of home-schoolers wanting their children to learn chess get someone (as in the case of my son's group) among the parents or contacts who can teach chess. I fit this bill as back in Dunedin I used to teach children chess, so I did it for the home-schooling group in the Sydney Northern Beaches with 15 or so kids too. I can't say I ever taught anyone to play blindfold though. If that was required perhaps I would enlist Jono!Why do this for chess but not school subjects?

Adamski
08-01-2009, 09:29 AM
I have wondered about this too. I used to homeschool my son but he is better in school. I am still homeschooling my daughter, but I wonder if that's the best thing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_O09lH9e0g&feature=channel_pageIf you have access to a good curriculum, and one or both parents have the time, I would say keep going for homeschooling. We do not see any way in which our son was disadvantaged by so doing.

Adamski
08-01-2009, 09:31 AM
Why do this for chess but not school subjects?I say just make use of available expertise - for any subject but especially wher ethe parents feel their knowledge is deficient. Works as long as group meets regularly which good for social development too.

Desmond
08-01-2009, 10:03 AM
I say just make use of available expertise - for any subject but especially wher ethe parents feel their knowledge is deficient.Good, so you don't subscribe to the learn as we go stuff someone was going on about a few pages back.


Works as long as group meets regularly which good for social development too.Yes learning together is good for social development isn't it. If only there was a place kids could go everyday to do just that. :hmm:

Igor_Goldenberg
08-01-2009, 10:04 AM
I do realise this, as per first paragraph. Layba under Latham wanted to defund some private schools.

They actually succeeded. As a result private school costs are sky-rocketing.

MichaelBaron
08-01-2009, 10:10 AM
They actually succeeded. As a result private school costs are sky-rocketing.

I think same can be said about all educational providers. In Universities and Tafe Colleges - the fees also went up dramatically since the government decided to cut (and eventually remove) the funding.

TheJoker
08-01-2009, 12:10 PM
Because the government partly funds the private schools. This is fairer than only funding one type of schooling: the government schools.

Agreed



OECD is a corrupt cartel.

Rubbish, show some evidence of such. OECD data is well respected in economic circles.



Fine: if true, they would have nothing to fear from vouchers.

I don,t think they fear vouchers, just realise it would be an inefficient nightmare to administer. Better to fund the schools directly based on the number of enrolments.



It would be more efficient, because it would be parents rather than educrats who control the funding.

It would less efficient because it involves a sigificant increase in transactions to account for.

As long as the procedures for allocating funding as transparent and reasonably (e.g. based on the number of enrollments) funds will be allocated efficiently



Not when it would solve the unemployment problem completely..

What a joke!!! Firstly there is still going to be frictional unemployment. Secondly the labour force doesn't have the spare capacity to support large scale homeschooling. So you just end up reducing output and pressuring inflation and wages through over-employment.



And when government schools fail? Remedial classes at universities show that they are often failing. Once again, lefties argue, what about market failures, when they are not nearly as catastrophic as government failures..

HSC results in NSW show that government schools often out perform their private counter-parts. So if schools are failing then it is all schools not just government schools.

Failure of a parent to homeschool their children properly has nothing to do with market failures. Funding to homeschoolers creates an incentive for people to remove their children from schools, some may utilise this funding incentive responsibly other will exploit by taking the funding without providing a quality education for their children. The government has the responsibility to ensuring accountability of public funds, this means a large bureacracy would be required to assess whether homeschoolers were not misusing public funds.



It would save heaps on the bureaucracy and unemployment benefits, and it's an ideal way to solve the class size problem that teachers whinge about.

I doubt many of the long-term unemployed in this country are suitable candidates to be homeschooling anybody, so any effect on unemployment benefits is likley to be neglible. More over the reduction of skilled people in the workforce is likley to pressure inflation (I would assume if one is capable of homeschooling one would need significant skill level). The unemployment argument is a bum one on all fronts.

As pointed out above the bureacracy required to account for public funding given to each and every homeschooler would be huge.

No doubt it can have benefits of reduced class sizes but at massive economic costs.

The government should not provide incentives for people to engage in such a costly form of education.

pax
08-01-2009, 12:43 PM
They actually succeeded.

Care to back this up? Last I checked, Latham lost the election and Rudd has protected private school funding.

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2009, 01:01 PM
Rubbish, show some evidence of such. OECD data is well respected in economic circles.
It's a cartel that tries to bully low-tax nations to raise their taxes to avoid "harmful tax competition", i.e. businesses moving to lower tax countries so the OECD countries can't fleece them. See International thuggery (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams122700.asp)by economics professor Walter Williams.


I don,t think they fear vouchers, just realise it would be an inefficient nightmare to administer.
None of their concern. Let them concentrate on teaching.


Better to fund the schools directly based on the number of enrolments.
It doesn't work in other areas, like groceries, cars, computers ... The successful ones are those that attract paying customers. Funding the schools would be like funding groceries, resulting in the crappy service seen in the USSR and Cuba.


It would less efficient because it involves a sigificant increase in transactions to account for.
The accounting is in the tests, which homeschoolers excel in. There would be a significant reduction in bureaucracy, with all the layers.


What a joke!!! Firstly there is still going to be frictional unemployment. Secondly the labour force doesn't have the spare capacity to support large scale homeschooling. So you just end up reducing output and pressuring inflation and wages through over-employment.
I.e. you'd rather see 5-10% unemployment by bullying both parents into the paid workforce and featherbedding the teachers unions, rather than small class sizes and teaching speed optimized to the students.


HSC results in NSW show that government schools often out perform their private counter-parts. So if schools are failing then it is all schools not just government schools.
Fine, then parents can choose the schools that suits them.


Failure of a parent to homeschool their children properly has nothing to do with market failures. Funding to homeschoolers creates an incentive for people to remove their children from schools, some may utilise this funding incentive responsibly other will exploit by taking the funding without providing a quality education for their children.
More likely, their kids will be better educated than stuck in failing public schools that value political correctness higher than being able to read, right and do sums.


The government has the responsibility to ensuring accountability of public funds, this means a large bureacracy would be required to assess whether homeschoolers were not misusing public funds.
Spoken like the true Anointed: can't trust the people, so need "experts" despite the repeated educratic failed fads. Yet homeschoolers excel in tests which should prove the merits of homeschooling.


The government should not provide incentives for people to engage in such a costly form of education.
It does already: the government educracy. The government should not be in the business of prescribing the mode of education; if it must fund it, the parents should have the choice, as much as it pains the Anointed.

TheJoker
08-01-2009, 01:38 PM
It's a cartel that tries to bully low-tax nations to raise their taxes to avoid "harmful tax competition", i.e. businesses moving to lower tax countries so the OECD countries can't fleece them. See International thuggery (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams122700.asp)by economics professor Walter Williams..

Firstly and I've covered this elsewhere the OECD was arguing againsts tax havens. That is countries that allow citizens/residents/cooporations to generate income in foreign countries (utilising the business conditions created by those foreign governments) and to avoid paying tax in the country where the income was generated.

They are are not against countries such as Hong Kong that have a low and competitive tax burden. Typical beat-up you're likely to find in biased media.



It doesn't work in other areas, like groceries, cars, computers ... The successful ones are those that attract paying customers.

Groceries, cars and computers dont thave the same spillover benefits. Responsible citizens such as myself are happy to pay tax to fund the education of the youth of this country.



The accounting is in the tests, which homeschoolers excel in. There would be a significant reduction in bureaucracy, with all the layers.

This would likely change when there is a financial incentive to conduct homeschooling rather than the current financial disincentive. Every dole bludging parent in the country would be homeschooling there kids to get their hands on the extra cash. That would soon see the results of homeschool students drop. At present (without financial incentive) only those that are confident they can deliver a better/equal education to that provided by conventional schools undertake homeschooling.

Trying to identify those homeschool teachers that are performing below par would be difficult considering the huge variation is student abilities



I.e. you'd rather see 5-10% unemployment.

Ever heard of a natural rate of unemployment or NAIRU


featherbedding the teachers unions, rather than small class sizes and teaching speed optimized to the students.

I do believe the unions are calling for smaller class sizes





Fine, then parents can choose the schools that suits them..

They already do and the schools are funded accordingly.



More likely, their kids will be better educated than stuck in failing public schools that value political correctness higher than being able to read, right and do sums.

You mean the same public schools that are the best performing schools in NSW, with the largest percentage of high achievers



Spoken like the true Anointed: can't trust the people, so need "experts" despite the repeated educratic failed fads. Yet homeschoolers excel in tests which should prove the merits of homeschooling..

Your comments aren't even related to my point! My point was about accountability of public funds. Accountability is a key concept in both public and private enterprises. I for one want to be sure my tax dollars are being put to good use!



It does already: the government educracy. The government should not be in the business of prescribing the mode of education; if it must fund it, the parents should have the choice, as much as it pains the Anointed.

If the government is funding education it has every right to prescribe the mode. I certainly don't want my tax dollars being dished out to homeschoolers, because I feel it is an inefficient use of resources.

If you want to find a country that doesn't tax you to fund education there are plenty of third world countries that follow your ideal free-market education model (i.e. each person pays for their own education without public interference/support). I would suggest however that you take a look at the literacy and numeracy rates of such countries.

Adamski
08-01-2009, 03:03 PM
Good, so you don't subscribe to the learn as we go stuff someone was going on about a few pages back.

Yes learning together is good for social development isn't it. If only there was a place kids could go everyday to do just that. :hmm:I believe that the majority of the teaching can be done by one or the other of the parents (assuming there are 2). But I don't think anyone would say no to enlisting outside help where necessary / available. I don't think that children need to be with other children every day to develop socially in a normal manner. Fortnightly gatherings + normal interaction with other people by the family proved sufficient for us.

Adamski
08-01-2009, 03:06 PM
Jono, how did the blindfold simul go at Phillip Island? Your score? (Maybe some of your opponents were home-schooled!) I did not want a whole thread for this so asking here.I heard from a shout by The Snail King that you got 8 out of 8. Well done, Jono! Care to post a game or 2 on the blindfold chess thread? TSK mentioned one where you negotiated tactics involving pins and mate threats very nicely. Ta.

Desmond
08-01-2009, 03:38 PM
I believe that the majority of the teaching can be done by one or the other of the parents (assuming there are 2).Are you talking about grades 1-12 or just the early years?


But I don't think anyone would say no to enlisting outside help where necessary / available.More likely to be available in a school with dozens of trained teachers than in your clique of like-minded parents. Would you as a home-schooling parent take a child to a school for specific classes, say 3 one hour lessons per week?


I don't think that children need to be with other children every day to develop socially in a normal manner. Fortnightly gatherings + normal interaction with other people by the family proved sufficient for us.Difficult to have a meaningful relationship with a meeting once a fortnight.

Adamski
08-01-2009, 03:54 PM
Are you talking about grades 1-12 or just the early years?

More likely to be available in a school with dozens of trained teachers than in your clique of like-minded parents. Would you as a home-schooling parent take a child to a school for specific classes, say 3 one hour lessons per week?

Difficult to have a meaningful relationship with a meeting once a fortnight.1. Up to HSC level.
2. I never did, and would be surprised if such a need arose.
3. Disagree, as long as the family has plenty of contact with people of all ages. One organisation to enable such contact is a church, especially if the family's invovement goes beyond just attending Sunday services..

pax
08-01-2009, 04:05 PM
1. Up to HSC level.
2. I never did, and would be surprised if such a need arose.
3. Disagree, as long as the family has plenty of contact with people of all ages. One organisation to enable such contact is a church, especially if the family's invovement goes beyond just attending Sunday services..

I think this is incredibly unrealistic.

My wife and I have five degrees and a diploma between us, and I wouldn't consider us even remotely qualified to teach the entire HSC syllabus even if we were both able to do it full time.

How could you possibly think that the average parents who may or may not have modest tertiary qualifications can teach the whole HSC syllabus without expert assistance?

Adamski
08-01-2009, 04:36 PM
I think this is incredibly unrealistic.

My wife and I have five degrees and a diploma between us, and I wouldn't consider us even remotely qualified to teach the entire HSC syllabus even if we were both able to do it full time.

How could you possibly think that the average parents who may or may not have modest tertiary qualifications can teach the whole HSC syllabus without expert assistance?I think it depends on what subjects you do. I say up to HSC but we were not allowed in NSW to continue home-schooling to that level. But a pupil can either focus on sciences or arts, and do say IT with either.
I would agree that it would be hard to cover say chemistry, biology and history by one set of parents.

The other factor is that a lot of subjects with reading requirements predominating can be prepared in advance, by reading ahead, especially arts in our case. My wife has an honours degree in English and I have an honours degree in History and have worked in IT for 27 years now. So we focused on the subjects we knew best.

MichaelBaron
08-01-2009, 09:43 PM
I think it depends on what subjects you do. I say up to HSC but we were not allowed in NSW to continue home-schooling to that level. But a pupil can either focus on sciences or arts, and do say IT with either.
I would agree that it would be hard to cover say chemistry, biology and history by one set of parents.

The other factor is that a lot of subjects with reading requirements predominating can be prepared in advance, by reading ahead, especially arts in our case. My wife has an honours degree in English and I have an honours degree in History and have worked in IT for 27 years now. So we focused on the subjects we knew best.

Good point. I think they key is to see whether parents are fit to teach the subjects or not. Overall, HS level is not that high. Therefore, most educated parents would be qualified.

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2009, 11:01 PM
How could you possibly think that the average parents who may or may not have modest tertiary qualifications can teach the whole HSC syllabus without expert assistance?
Who says they can't obtain expert assistance. The fact remains that homeschooled kids perform better than government school kids. But for the Anointed, facts don't matter: parents aren't fit to teach their kids; this must be left to educratically trained "experts".

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2009, 11:03 PM
I heard from a shout by The Snail King that you got 8 out of 8. Well done, Jono! Care to post a game or 2 on the blindfold chess thread? TSK mentioned one where you negotiated tactics involving pins and mate threats very nicely. Ta.
Thanx Adamski. Yes, TSK was a very efficient caller again, and I did score 8/8. In the game in question, he would have had a back-rank mating combo, but the R that would have delivered the mate was pinned, so he had no more play.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 12:58 AM
Who says they can't obtain expert assistance. The fact remains that homeschooled kids perform better than government school kids. But for the Anointed, facts don't matter: parents aren't fit to teach their kids; this must be left to educratically trained "experts".

I'd tend to agree with Jono here, I dont think that there is anything that in HSC that couldn't be mastered by reasonably intelligent adult in a short period of time.

As a student in high school I often found it uneccesarry to attend classes at all (I atteneded an average 1.5 days a week, mostly to take tests and hand in assignments) and learnt the HSC content straight from the textbooks. In a sense I homschooled myself and still managed excellent marks.

I don't object to homeschooling kids on the basis that parents aren't capable. Currently the main reason to homeschool kids is because parents are confident they can increase their childs grades. However, providing any public funding for homeschooling would change this by providing a financial incentive for homeschooling children that could well have nothing to do with the childrens academic welfare.

The other reason to object to public funding for homeschooling is its economic inefficiency.

IMO personally funded homeschooling is a valid.

However, publicly funded conventional private and government schools should always be maintained.

Adamski
09-01-2009, 07:43 AM
I'd tend to agree with Jono here, I dont think that there is anything that in HSC that couldn't be mastered by reasonably intelligent adult in a short period of time.

As a student in high school I often found it uneccesarry to attend classes at all (I atteneded an average 1.5 days a week, mostly to take tests and hand in assignments) and learnt the HSC content straight from the textbooks. In a sense I homschooled myself and still managed excellent marks.

I don't object to homeschooling kids on the basis that parents aren't capable. Currently the main reason to homeschool kids is because parents are confident they can increase their childs grades. However, providing any public funding for homeschooling would change this by providing a financial incentive for homeschooling children that could well have nothing to do with the childrens academic welfare.

The other reason to object to public funding for homeschooling is its economic inefficiency.

IMO personally funded homeschooling is a valid.

However, publicly funded conventional private and government schools should always be maintained.I agree with most of what you say above, but I will point out that it isn't always "better grades" that is the main incentive to homeschool. I know of a number of cases where it was public school inaction over bullying that was the man reason to homeschool.

Desmond
09-01-2009, 08:26 AM
I'd tend to agree with Jono here, I dont think that there is anything that in HSC that couldn't be mastered by reasonably intelligent adult in a short period of time.What about the kid who couldn't manage to pass maths A in high school? Let him have a crack at teaching others maths B and C later in life?

What about mastering new languages in "a short period of time"? Try 3 at once for starters. I'll give you a month to become fluent. Good luck with that.


I agree with most of what you say above, but I will point out that it isn't always "better grades" that is the main incentive to homeschool. Yes often it is members of science-denying cults that want to protect their kids from the real world so that they can be indoctrinated at home.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-01-2009, 09:26 AM
I don't object to homeschooling kids on the basis that parents aren't capable. Currently the main reason to homeschool kids is because parents are confident they can increase their childs grades. However, providing any public funding for homeschooling would change this by providing a financial incentive for homeschooling children that could well have nothing to do with the childrens academic welfare.

To put it bluntly, if you pay parents directly to homeschool, they can squander the money on anything but education and it's almost impossible to control.
It is indeed a problem.

However, when parent don't value education, their children are not likely to receive a good one irrespectively of how education is funded and provided.

Personal note:
I did not and will not homeschool my children, I don't think homeschooling is any better then a school. I don't think homeschooling generally is a good idea.
However, it's my personal preference which I don't like to be imposed on others. If some parents want to homeschool their children, they should have right to do so (as well as get funding they forego by not using schools).

Igor_Goldenberg
09-01-2009, 09:28 AM
Another note:

Most of the children that do well in schools achieve it by doing a lot of work at home, usually with encouragement and help from parents.

That help from parents often takes hours and hours, especially in the early classes, thus becoming in effect a homeschooling

Igor_Goldenberg
09-01-2009, 09:33 AM
What about the kid who couldn't manage to pass maths A in high school? Let him have a crack at teaching others maths B and C later in life?

Unfortunately I came across quite a few maths teachers that I would seriously doubt get more then C in their school time.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 09:36 AM
Yes often it is members of science-denying cults that want to protect their kids from the real world so that they can be indoctrinated at home.
More likely, wanting to protect kids from the misotheistic indoctrination and pseudo-science of goo to you via the zoo; black armband political correctness that blames white men for all evils in the world which are actually ubiquitous and which white men have done the most to eradicate; and the neglect of reading, writing and doing sums.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 09:39 AM
I'd tend to agree with Jono here, I dont think that there is anything that in HSC that couldn't be mastered by reasonably intelligent adult in a short period of time.

As a student in high school I often found it uneccesarry to attend classes at all (I atteneded an average 1.5 days a week, mostly to take tests and hand in assignments) and learnt the HSC content straight from the textbooks. In a sense I homschooled myself and still managed excellent marks.
Well done! It proves my point that we need not fear for the education of homeschooled kids.


However, providing any public funding for homeschooling would change this by providing a financial incentive for homeschooling children that could well have nothing to do with the childrens academic welfare.
Rather, it would remove the huge disincentive and the unfair charging of parents for a school system they don't use.


The other reason to object to public funding for homeschooling is its economic inefficiency.
Except that the small class sizes and reduction of bureaucracy is very efficient.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 09:43 AM
To put it bluntly, if you pay parents directly to homeschool, they can squander the money on anything but education and it's almost impossible to control.
For this reason, tax rebates are an even better idea than education vouchers. Such rebates could be claimed for the education of the parents' choice. This way, it is also not a cost to the government, but a reduction in the amount it takes from the people.


However, when parent don't value education, their children are not likely to receive a good one irrespectively of how education is funded and provided.
And this is a major factor in the success of kids anyway, even if they go to schools. If parents take no interest in education, school helps little. I merely take it to the next logical step.


Personal note:
I did not and will not homeschool my children, I don't think homeschooling is any better then a school. I don't think homeschooling generally is a good idea.
However, it's my personal preference which I don't like to be imposed on others. If some parents want to homeschool their children, they should have right to do so (as well as get funding they forego by not using schools).
Yes, via a tax rebate.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 11:28 AM
Rather, it would remove the huge disincentive and the unfair charging of parents for a school system they don't use.

It is not unfair to charge citizens for the school system, even those without children, since it benefits everybody to have an educated population.



Except that the small class sizes and reduction of bureaucracy is very efficient.

Small class sizes are not neccesarrily more economically efficient. You would need to prove that the extra educational benefits can be trasferred into additional economic benefits that outweigh the additional economic costs.

I dont see how coordinating and thousand of inidividual educators as opposed to several centralised institutions is supposed to reduce bureaucracy.

Glad to see you've given up the unemployment arguement, as the type of people capable of educating their kids are the exact type of people the Australian workforce lacks (those with capacity to learn and acquire news skills and adapt to industry needs).

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 11:41 AM
Personal note:
I did not and will not homeschool my children, I don't think homeschooling is any better then a school. I don't think homeschooling generally is a good idea.
However, it's my personal preference which I don't like to be imposed on others. If some parents want to homeschool their children, they should have right to do so (as well as get funding they forego by not using schools).

Should those without children also get rebates for "not utilising the system"?

If we adopted a true user pays system a lot of parents would be unable to afford to educate their children.

Desmond
09-01-2009, 11:56 AM
Unfortunately I came across quite a few maths teachers that I would seriously doubt get more then C in their school time.I'd take my chances with a trained teacher who barely passed over an un-trained teacher who failed.

Desmond
09-01-2009, 12:00 PM
More likely, wanting to protect kids from the misotheistic indoctrination and pseudo-science of goo to you via the zoo; black armband political correctness that blames white men for all evils in the world which are actually ubiquitous and which white men have done the most to eradicate; and the neglect of reading, writing and doing sums.You say tomayto I say tomarto. But at least admit that's the reason. None of this "better results" or "less beauracracy" pretention.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 12:06 PM
You say tomayto I say tomarto. But at least admit that's the reason. None of this "better results" or "less beauracracy" pretention.
Sure, I admit that a major reason for homeschooling is parents wanting to make sure that their kids can read, write and do sums, rather than waste time on PE and PC crap.

And just because reason A is primary, it doesn't follow that reasons B and C are invalid.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 12:08 PM
I'd take my chances with a trained teacher who barely passed over an un-trained teacher who failed.
What maths teaching from a "trained" teacher who barely passed maths, vs an A-student in maths who excels in giving tutorials but can't be bothered to go through years of mushy educratic pap to become "trained"?

Desmond
09-01-2009, 12:21 PM
What maths teaching from a "trained" teacher who barely passed maths, vs an A-student in maths who excels in giving tutorials but can't be bothered to go through years of mushy educratic pap to become "trained"?Why give me the choice? The child doesn't get to chose his/her parents' aptitude.

And so what if they are A at one subject? Maybe the kid likes music, or history, or Elizabethan English, or computers, or horticulture. I guess that doesn't matter as long as the parent can teach them other subjects that s/he learnt at school.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 12:22 PM
Sure, I admit that a major reason for homeschooling is...

One of the main reasons according to a US study is to educate (indoctrinate) children with christian values. I suspect the isolation prevents these values from being challenged until such time as they become fixed.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 12:24 PM
Why give me the choice? The child doesn't get to chose his/her parents' aptitude.
You were the one who brought it up.


And so what if they are A at one subject?
It means that they are able to teach that.


Maybe the kid likes music, or history, or Elizabethan English, or computers, or horticulture. I guess that doesn't matter as long as the parent can teach them other subjects that s/he learnt at school.
Of course. But in the government schools, you are more likely to learn social(ist) studies rather than history, and PC crap rather than Elizabethan English and Shakespeare.

Desmond
09-01-2009, 12:29 PM
Sure, I admit that a major reason for homeschooling is parents wanting to make sure that their kids can read, write and do sums, rather than waste time on PE and PC crap.

And just because reason A is primary, it doesn't follow that reasons B and C are invalid.It also doesn't follow that they are valid.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 12:31 PM
One of the main reasons according to a US study is to educate (indoctrinate) children with christian values.
Indeed, instead of the anti-Christian indoctrination in the government schools:


I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism … .

It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive. [J. Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, The Humanist, pp. 23, 26, Jan.–Feb. 1983]


I suspect the isolation prevents these values from being challenged until such time as they become fixed.
As opposed to misotheistic lefty ideas that you'd like to see fixed by the public schools.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 12:33 PM
It also doesn't follow that they are valid.
Who claimed otherwise? Their validity must be analysed on their own, not merely by pointing to other reasons.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 12:33 PM
Of course. But in the government schools, you are more likely to learn social(ist) studies rather than history, and PC crap rather than Elizabethan English and Shakespeare.

I went to government schools and History, Shakespeare (which evidently I think has little benefit to the modern HS student and should be resevered for specialist University study) where all included.

The only criticism I would have of government and many private schools is that they are a little too slow to adapt the content to the modern environment.

Desmond
09-01-2009, 12:38 PM
You were the one who brought it up.The point is that there have to be some minimum standards. Yes you are right not every maths teacher is an A student. But neither is every parent. At least teachers have gone through uni and have attained some standard. All parents have done is proved they can reproduce.


It means that they are able to teach that.But you want them to teach the entire HSC curriculum. Not just the one subject they were good at.


Of course. But in the government schools, you are more likely to learn social(ist) studies rather than history, and PC crap rather than Elizabethan English and Shakespeare.If so, no justification to throw the baby out wioth the bathwater. And your response does not address the point that the parent will not be versed in all these subjects.

Desmond
09-01-2009, 12:42 PM
Who claimed otherwise? Their validity must be analysed on their own, not merely by pointing to other reasons.Yes I agree.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 12:45 PM
Indeed, instead of the anti-Christian indoctrination in the government schools.

Only if you see evolution as anti-christian, the Pope doesn't (a he is a very highly regarded theologian)

And if you dont like the government schools then choose a private christian school.

But I guess in your eyes they are anti-christian as well because they teach evolution and te like.


As opposed to misotheistic lefty ideas that you'd like to see fixed by the public schools.

Once again I dont think the ideas are "misotheistic" that is only your skewed perception. In fact many of the private schools run by Christian organisations use an identical curriculum to government schools.

If a child goes to school and church they will be well equiped to form their own opinions on matters of faith.

As for a left wing orientation, I find it hard how you could have such in regards the the main subjects such an English, Maths and Science.

In History, Social Studies or Economics I suspect your extreme rightist views again skew your perception. I have yet to see and economics class that expells the benefits of centrally planned economies or anything remotely leftist.

And again it is very easy to find a right-wing oriented Christian school. So none of your "values" reasoning for isolating children from mainstream schooling is valid.

Do you agree that a majority of parents use homeschooling in an attempt to isolate their children from values that conflict with your own personal values, until such time as the children as sufficiently indoctrinated?

Igor_Goldenberg
09-01-2009, 02:57 PM
One of the main reasons according to a US study is to educate (indoctrinate) children with christian values. I suspect the isolation prevents these values from being challenged until such time as they become fixed.

I suspect (might be wrong though) that in US access to private schools is even more difficult then in Australia.

Let's admit, any education is partially indoctrination. Parents must be the authority on choosing what sort of indoctrination their children receive.
Easy access to private education (that would be facilitated by either a voucher system or equal funding of private and public schools) removes the conflict and argument about the bias of education. If you don't like middle age Christian dogmatisation, send your child to lefty tree huggers school and vice-versa. Market is usually pretty efficient in meeting demand.

Easier access to private education would virtually remove home-schooling debate, as most of those parents will find a school of their liking.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 03:41 PM
Let's admit, any education is partially indoctrination. Parents must be the authority on choosing what sort of indoctrination their children receive.

I tend to agree with you. But the community should be free to decide which of those forms receives public funding. For example if you want to oopen a communist school that is fine but I dont think the public should be forced to fund such an institution.


Easy access to private education (that would be facilitated by either a voucher system or equal funding of private and public schools) removes the conflict and argument about the bias of education.

Yes equal funding has its benefits, but it also means higher taxes and more administration associated with the collection and redistribution of public funds. And supports middle-class welfare. Would you means test the voucher system?


Easier access to private education would virtually remove home-schooling debate, as most of those parents will find a school of their liking.

Australia has very easy access and significant public fundng of private education, and yet on this BB alone we have two parents opting for home schooling.

MichaelBaron
09-01-2009, 08:59 PM
Easier access to private education would virtually remove home-schooling debate, as most of those parents will find a school of their liking.

A big question is, will the government ever decide to introduce a system where government funding is available for parents to send their kids to private schools? While it appears to be a sensible thing to do...it will ridicule the public school system. Therefore, government may feel it is politically incorrect to do so.

Adamski
09-01-2009, 09:19 PM
Australia has very easy access and significant public fundng of private education, and yet on this BB alone we have two parents opting for home schooling.Why didn't we choose a private school? Easy - here they are prohibitively expensive . Only really an option for the rich. Even with all costs included, homeschooling is cheaper.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 10:20 PM
Why didn't we choose a private school? Easy - here they are prohibitively expensive . Only really an option for the rich. Even with all costs included, homeschooling is cheaper.


Really does the home schooling parent need to stay at home to look after younger children. Otherwise part-time work during school hours should easily generate enough income to cover the fees.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 10:33 PM
A big question is, will the government ever decide to introduce a system where government funding is available for parents to send their kids to private schools? While it appears to be a sensible thing to do...it will ridicule the public school system. Therefore, government may feel it is politically incorrect to do so.

They already do, from the Scotch College Website:


We have emphasised that the School does not retain one dollar of funds received from both the Commonwealth and State governments – every dollar is passed directly to the fee-paying parents of the School by way of a rebate on fee accounts....

Scotch College’s [revenue] was bolstered by $4.27 million in government grants in 2006. Every dollar of government funding is passed directly to our fee-paying parents as a rebate to them – not as a rebate for Scotch. This is reflected in term accounts for all students. This ensures that fee-paying parents are simply recovering the recurrent costs associated with educating their boys at the School. The School makes a minimal operating surplus each year ($2.2 million in 2006 and $0.9 million in 2007) which is ultimately invested back into its facilities and resources.

I note that not all independent schools employ this same practice.


The Age reported Scotch College Fees as being $17,856 in 2006:eek:

MichaelBaron
10-01-2009, 10:44 AM
They already do, from the Scotch College Website:

[INDENT]We have emphasised that the School does not retain one dollar of funds received from both the Commonwealth and State governments – every dollar is passed directly to the fee-paying parents of the School by way of a rebate on fee accounts....


The Age reported Scotch College Fees as being $17,856 in 2006:eek:

Good!

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2009, 11:12 AM
A big question is, will the government ever decide to introduce a system where government funding is available for parents to send their kids to private schools? While it appears to be a sensible thing to do...it will ridicule the public school system. Therefore, government may feel it is politically incorrect to do so.
More likely, the teachers unions and bureaucracy will be against a fair system of education vouchers or tax rebates that would give parents a real choice. Of course, many teachers and bureaucrats (and Comrade Obamov) educate their own kids privately but want to deny choice to the public. There was a Yes Prime Minister episode about this, "The National Education Service".

pax
10-01-2009, 02:14 PM
I'm not actually opposed to homeschooling. I just think that parents that propose to homeschool should demonstrate that they are suitably qualified and suitably prepared for what is a very difficult job. Regulation is especially necessary if you propose having financial incentives for people to homeschool.

Adamski
10-01-2009, 03:32 PM
I'm not actually opposed to homeschooling. I just think that parents that propose to homeschool should demonstrate that they are suitably qualified and suitably prepared for what is a very difficult job. Regulation is especially necessary if you propose having financial incentives for people to homeschool.Glad to hear it. In NSW anyway they do have to "demonstrate that they are suitably qualified and suitably prepared."

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2009, 05:47 PM
I'm not actually opposed to homeschooling. I just think that parents that propose to homeschool should demonstrate that they are suitably qualified and suitably prepared for what is a very difficult job.
That would rule out many "trained" teachers too. And who would decide whether they are "suitably qualified"? Those with a vested interest in seeing them populate the government schools? Those who think that the current fads are more important than reading, writing and doing sums?


Regulation is especially necessary if you propose having financial incentives for people to homeschool.
Who regulates the regulators? One merit of homeschooling is escaping the wasteful and faddish educracy.

pax
10-01-2009, 06:37 PM
Glad to hear it. In NSW anyway they do have to "demonstrate that they are suitably qualified and suitably prepared."
Of course. But Jono wants a complete free-for-all where anyone can homeschool without any regulation at all, and where people are actually *paid* for keeping their kids out of school.

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2009, 07:26 PM
But Jono wants a complete free-for-all where anyone can homeschool without any regulation at all,
Straw man. We don't have laws regulating what parents feed their kids, but we can proscute parents who starve or otherwise malnourish their kids. There is no need to make laws for the majority of parents on what kids diets must be, just take care of the abusers. Similarly with education: kids should know how to read, write and do sums, for example — which is not always the case with the government schools with their educratic fads.


and where people are actually *paid* for keeping their kids out of school.
How about a tax rebate for educational expenses?

MichaelBaron
10-01-2009, 09:11 PM
I'm not actually opposed to homeschooling. I just think that parents that propose to homeschool should demonstrate that they are suitably qualified and suitably prepared for what is a very difficult job. Regulation is especially necessary if you propose having financial incentives for people to homeschool.

I agree

Zwischenzug
10-01-2009, 09:51 PM
I'm not actually opposed to homeschooling. I just think that parents that propose to homeschool should demonstrate that they are suitably qualified and suitably prepared for what is a very difficult job. Regulation is especially necessary if you propose having financial incentives for people to homeschool.

If the parents decide to educate their child using private tutors (as opposed to personally teaching the child) then this is less an issue.

pax
11-01-2009, 12:06 AM
We don't have laws regulating what parents feed their kids, but we can proscute parents who starve or otherwise malnourish their kids. There is no need to make laws for the majority of parents on what kids diets must be, just take care of the abusers. Similarly with education: kids should know how to read, write and do sums, for example — which is not always the case with the government schools with their educratic fads.

False analogy. Anybody is capable of purchasing and preparing food. The same is not true of the ability to provide a suitable education for a child. The kind of people that approach homeschooling thinking it can't be any harder than feeding their children are exactly the sort of people who probably should not be homeschooling their kids.

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2009, 01:43 AM
False analogy. Anybody is capable of purchasing and preparing food.
Not relevant to the analogy.


The same is not true of the ability to provide a suitable education for a child.
And judging by the number of kids who leave school unable to read, write or do sums, and the number of remedial programs offered by unis, this ability is lacking in government schools as well.


The kind of people that approach homeschooling thinking it can't be any harder than feeding their children
It's not hard to teach kids to read, write and do sums, even if it might be hard to "educate" them into political correctness and look-and-guess whole language reading.


are exactly the sort of people who probably should not be homeschooling their kids.
Not the argument. It's that we don't need government regulations of the diets of children just because some parents malnourish them.

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2009, 01:44 AM
If the parents decide to educate their child using private tutors (as opposed to personally teaching the child) then this is less an issue.
Lots of homeschooling parents make use of outside experts, often more qualified in the subject than the government school teachers but unwilling to endure years of mush and fads in the educratic teacher certification courses.

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2009, 02:33 PM
The Courier Mail published an article by a Margaret Wenham, “Level Playing Field for All (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24912459-27197,00.html)”, 15 Jan 2009, which advocated that only government schools should be allowed. Yet she admitted that a government school student is funded by $10,700 of taxpayers' money while a private school student is funded by only $7,500. This means that parents of private school kids are subsidizing the education of public school kids, the opposite of what her rant claimed.

pax
16-01-2009, 03:19 PM
Jono thinks that a school that is capable of raising $50000 per child in fees should receive identical government handouts to those who can barely fees at all.

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2009, 04:25 PM
Jono thinks that a school that is capable of raising $50000 per child in fees should receive identical government handouts to those who can barely fees at all.
Jono actually points out that private schools cost taxpayers less money despite leftist whinges about "subsidizing private schools". Jono also points out that school vouchers will benefit such poor people by giving them a chance to go to a good school even if the local state school is crap. But rich lefties like Comrade Obamov oppose vouchers precisely because he can afford to send his own daughters to an exclusive and expensive private school—and because he needs the votes of the teachers unions, many members of which themselves send their own kids to private schools.

TheJoker
18-01-2009, 09:38 PM
The Courier Mail published an article by a Margaret Wenham... a government school student is funded by $10,700 of taxpayers' money while a private school student is funded by only $7,500.

Considering in the 2008 NSW HSC public schools topped the academic achievement list in the majority of regions. And considering that the average private school fees would more than cover the funding gap. It shows that government school can and often are more efficient than private schools. This begs the question of whether the government should be funding them in the first place if they are economically and academically inferior to public schools.

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2009, 12:19 AM
Considering in the 2008 NSW HSC public schools topped the academic achievement list in the majority of regions. And considering that the average private school fees would more than cover the funding gap. It shows that government school can and often are more efficient than private schools.
Fine, then they should have nothing to fear from parental choice then!!

Meanwhile, check out the Yes Prime Minister episode "The National Education Service" (see it in four parts at Youtube) :) Watch and learn! ::lol: :

5ZuKxP3JU6s&feature=relatedJsrCHmLuiWw&feature=related

LLDb2V86Ei0&feature=relatedN9lLIDvdSwE&feature=related


This begs the question of whether the government should be funding them in the first place if they are economically and academically inferior to public schools.
This is a faulty use of the phrase "begging the question".

TheJoker
19-01-2009, 09:14 AM
Fine, then they should have nothing to fear from parental choice then!!.

They don't!!! But I was talking from a strategic governance point of view (i.e. delivering the best value for each tax dollar). Pumping public funds into private organisations (particularly if they are profiting making organisations) that are neither economically and academically as government schools is not delivering the best value to taxpayers.

Equally if it were the case that the private schools were able to outperform the public schools and at a lower cost per student, then funing private schooling would be the best way to deliver value to the tax payer. However the lastest HSC results combined with the average cost per student for private schools shows that this is not the case.

The only strategic reason to fund private schools is if the public system doesn't have sufficient capacity and the private system can provide the extra capacity.

The other reason to do this is that a significant number of tax payers want this to occur (and after all it is their money) despite the fact that it is not the best method to deliver value for each tax dollar spent on education.

The private school supporters always whine that they are subsidising other childrens education. But they don't seem to mind having their childrens education subsidised by those people who have no children in school.


This is a faulty use of the phrase "begging the question".

Care factor "0"

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2009, 09:46 AM
They don't!!!
Yet the educracy and teachers unions are the biggest opponents of parental choice.


But I was talking from a strategic governance point of view (i.e. delivering the best value for each tax dollar).
And that is achieved by parental choice forcing the schools to compete for the money. Governments tend to reward failure—Comrade Obamov promising still more money to Washington DC's atrrocious government schools while of course choosing to take his own kids out of the system, a choice he denies parents not as rich as he is.


Equally if it were the case that the private schools were able to outperform the public schools and at a lower cost per student, then funing private schooling would be the best way to deliver value to the tax payer.
I didn't say that private schools should be funded, but that parents should be funded for educational choice, e.g. by what the government currently pays per government school pupil.


However the lastest HSC results combined with the average cost per student for private schools shows that this is not the case.
Fine, so let parents choose, and they may well choose the government schools if they are better.


The other reason to do this is that a significant number of tax payers want this to occur (and after all it is their money) despite the fact that it is not the best method to deliver value for each tax dollar spent on education.
The best method is what applies to other things we value: let the buyer choose, forcing suppliers to compete for their dollars.


The private school supporters always whine that they are subsidising other childrens education. But they don't seem to mind having their childrens education subsidised by those people who have no children in school.
Some do mind this, so advocate tax rebates for educational expenses rather than any government funding of education.


Care factor "0"
Not surprising, since the modern education system downplays correct spelling and grammar in favour of fads.

TheJoker
19-01-2009, 10:47 AM
And that is achieved by parental choice forcing the schools to compete for the money.

Depends on how measure the service provided by schools. The reason private schools can attract students despite not outperforming public schools academically. It that a private high school education is a means of signalling potential employers/clients about socio-economic background. Remember parents are not always looking for the school that provides the best education but rather the one that is provides the most opportunities.

It's like a Gucci t-shirt, it may have equal quality to a bonds t-shirt. However, people are willing to pay more for it because it is a way of signalling socio-economic status.

The governments task is to ensure a quality education, a parents task is to ensure maximum opportunity/privilege for their child.


I didn't say that private schools should be funded, but that parents should be funded for educational choice, e.g. by what the government currently pays per government school pupil.... Fine, so let parents choose, and they may well choose the government schools if they are better.

Parents wont necessarily choose based on quality of education but rather other factors as outlined above.

The government is trying to get the best value per dollar. I am sure tax payers without children would prefer there funding goes to the most academically sound orgaisations rather than propping up a method for signalling social class in the business environment.



The best method is what applies to other things we value: let the buyer choose, forcing suppliers to compete for their dollars.

Except the governments objective is simply quality education of the population so as to forster economic development. Parents choose schools for a variety of other reasons that may not be consistent the governments goal.

It a fallacay of composition that what is best for the individual is also best for the group.



Some do mind this, so advocate tax rebates for educational expenses rather than any government funding of education.

Porbably because they dont understand the spillover benefits of universal education. What about the people who don't have enough income to pay the education costs in the first place???

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2009, 11:27 AM
In today's Courier Mail, Dr Scott Prasser, lecturer in corporate governance at the University of Sunshine Coast, has an article "It's vital education options remain a freedom-of-choice matter".

He points out that the current cry to nationalize education, e.g. by that Margaret Wenham lefty, is reminiscent of those :


who, in the 1940s, wanted to nationalise the banks or airline system, and limit private housing in favour of government housing commission estates, removing individual choice, demanding uniformity, limiting diversity and perpetuating a belief in government monopoly and that government knows best.

Surely grown-ups don't believe that any more. Haven't we seen enough government mistakes, white-elephant projects, wasted public spending and bureaucratic, centralised and inflexible decision making to know that it is competition and choice that drives innovation, meets people's needs and promotes diversity.

...

But critics of the non-government education sector never get it. They never understand that choice matters [actually they do, for their own children]. After all, why—in our increasingly diverse and tolerant society that likes choice in what we buy, how we live, the way we work—be somehow denied in relation to schools?

...

Let's have a real level playing field in education and attach dollars to the student rather than to systems.

Let parents make the choice of what school and let the dollars flow accordingly. My prediction is that if this was allowed, public school enrolments would decline even faster unless the public education system became more responsive to education needs, parental demands and quality education outcomes.

TheJoker
19-01-2009, 01:22 PM
In today's Courier Mail, Dr Scott Prasser, lecturer in corporate governance at the University of Sunshine Coast, has an article "It's vital education options remain a freedom-of-choice matter".

Let parents make the choice of what school and let the dollars flow accordingly. My prediction is that if this was allowed, public school enrolments would decline even faster unless the public education system became more responsive to education needs, parental demands and quality education outcomes.[/indent]

Fallacy of composition. The government needs to consider the macro impacts.

Parents have already been duped into believing that private schools produce better education outcomes than their public counter-parts.

Fees at public schools would need to rise to the levels of their private counter-parts due to the additional requirements needed to succeed in a competitive environment (e.g. advertising and marketing departments etc).

Also do you propose that the private schools have the same restrictions as the governments schools that is they need to adopt a fee structure not more than the voucher amount? Or is only the government schools that are to be ecumbered with the requirement to ensure universal access?

If we are to fund the parents it should certainly be means tested. We don't need more middle and upper class welfare.

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2009, 01:32 PM
Fallacy of composition.
Come off it.


The government needs to consider the macro impacts.
Yes, like choice delivering better outcomes than government monopoly! But you sound just like Sir Humphrey Appleby, smothering all improvement in delaying tactics like committees, reports and "due consideration".


Parents have already been duped into believing that private schools produce better education outcomes than their public counter-parts.
Right, so lets limit their choices because they don't know what's good for them or their kids (Sir Humphrey). Bottom line: Joke doesn't believe in freedom.


Fees at public schools would need to rise to the levels of their private counter-parts due to the additional requirements needed to succeed in a competitive environment (e.g. advertising and marketing departments etc).
And of course,the main requirement to succeed is to give buyers what they want, i.e. kids who can read, write and do sums in preference to "look and guess", "new maths" and how racist and evil the capitalist west is.


Also do you propose that the private schools have the same restrictions as the governments schools that is they need to adopt a fee structure not more than the voucher amount?
Vouchers help poor people afford good schools. Rich lefties like Comrade Obamov can oppose vouchers because they can afford the good schools.


Or is only the government schools that are to be ecumbered with the requirement to ensure universal access?
I care about what's best for the kids, not what's "fairest" for the school system.


If we are to fund the parents it should certainly be means tested.
More bureaucracy. Joke's answer to everything, like Sir Humphrey's. is bigger government.


We don't need more middle and upper class welfare.
Tax rebates are not welfare anyway. Even so, the "middle class welfare" is a logical result of refusing Friedman's and the LDP's negative taxation system: i.e. either you keep people in poverty traps by savagely cutting back benefits at a rate penalizes earning extra income, or the benefits are extended into the middle class so that it's worthwhile for the poor to start earning their own way.

TheJoker
19-01-2009, 02:01 PM
Come off it..

Eloquent counter argument:rolleyes:



Yes, like choice delivering better outcomes than government monopoly!

What government monopoly??? There is no such thing. Private schools are a dime a dozen.



Right, so lets limit their choices because they don't know what's good for them or their kids ... Bottom line: Joker doesn't believe in freedom.!

Not when it comes to spending other people's money.


And of course,the main requirement to succeed is to give buyers what they want, i.e. kids who can read, write and do sums.

I'd hope they will be able to do more than sums; subtraction, multiplication and division would be a good start;)

Seriously the government schools are already provding this in NSW in most areas above and beyond there private counterparts. Yet "buyers" are still electing to pay high fees to send their children to private schools that are performing worse.

This means that the "buyers" are looking for other attributes. I suspect the ability to signall socio-economic status is one of the primary attributes. The other is likley moral/ethical/politcal instruction based around particular ideologies. And other extra-curricula activities.

Also private schools often have a bigger budget that allows the to advertise.



Vouchers help poor people afford good schools. Rich lefties like Comrade Obamov can oppose vouchers because they can afford the good schools.

Not neccessary in NSW, the public schools generally top the list anyway.


I care about what's best for the kids, not what's "fairest" for the school system.



More bureaucracy.

Actually far less since it would require less processing of vouchers. Also if vouchers were means tested the tax burden would less, since only those in need of genuine welfare support would receive it and not those who already have the means to pay the education of their children.

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2009, 03:40 PM
What government monopoly??? There is no such thing. Private schools are a dime a dozen.
Not if lefty Anointed like you and Margaret Wenham and various Layba types had their way.


Not when it comes to spending other people's money.
Then you should support restrictions on government spending on education and other things, and allow parents to choose their own schooling via tax rebates. And if government must spend on education, let the parents choose the schools rather than be forced into a one size fits all educracy.


I'd hope they will be able to do more than sums; subtraction, multiplication and division would be a good start;)
"Do sums" is a colloquial expression for arithmetic. But there is a trend away from such basics as times tables.


Seriously the government schools are already provding this in NSW in most areas above and beyond there private counterparts.
Good. See what competition does!


Yet "buyers" are still electing to pay high fees to send their children to private schools that are performing worse.
Their choice. It's not your job to protect people from their own bad choices.


This means that the "buyers" are looking for other attributes. I suspect the ability to signall socio-economic status is one of the primary attributes. The other is likley moral/ethical/politcal instruction based around particular ideologies.
As opposed to the ideology of political correctness in government schools.


Also private schools often have a bigger budget that allows the to advertise.
Mostly paid for privately.


Actually far less since it would require less processing of vouchers. Also if vouchers were means tested the tax burden would less, since only those in need of genuine welfare support would receive it and not those who already have the means to pay the education of their children.
The whole point is that fairness demands that all parents receive assistance or tax breaks for their educational expenses, so that the competition will be a level playing field.

pax
19-01-2009, 06:11 PM
Jono actually points out that private schools cost taxpayers less money

I do not dispute the fact that private schools cost the government marginally less than public schools. They should cost less - how much less they should cost is a much more complex question.


Jono also points out that school vouchers will benefit such poor people by giving them a chance to go to a good school even if the local state school is crap.

They have exactly this opportunity at present, since private schools are funded by the government on a per student basis at a substantial proportion of the rate of public schools. Yet, amazingly, "poor people" still cannot afford to pay $20,000 per year fees.

TheJoker
19-01-2009, 07:39 PM
"Do sums" is a colloquial expression for arithmetic.

I was aware of this the comment was made tongue-in-cheek.


Their choice. It's not your job to protect people from their own bad choices.

Somewhat true, however their poor choices do have the capacity to have a rather large effect on the broader economy, therefore their choices are everybody's business to some extent. Even so, it certainly isn't my job to fund their poor choices.


The whole point is that fairness demands that all parents receive assistance or tax breaks for their educational expenses, so that the competition will be a level playing field.

How can it be a level playing field when government schools have to strucutre their fees to ensure universal access to education and private schools don't. As you pointed out government schools have o survive with $10,700 of funding. Whereas private schools have on average $17,500 of per student (assuming average fees of $10k p.a.). Additionally private schools can refuse enrollment of student with poor academic performance, government schools on a whole cannot.

Fairness and a level playing field demand equal obligations and opportunities.

I ahppy for the government to provide limited funding to private education facilities to reduce the load on the public system and to provide and external reference point against which to measure performance. But the idea that they should receive equal funding to level the playing field is absurd, unless you are also going to gov them the same obligations.

pax
20-01-2009, 05:24 PM
I ahppy for the government to provide limited funding to private education facilities to reduce the load on the public system and to provide and external reference point against which to measure performance. But the idea that they should receive equal funding to level the playing field is absurd, unless you are also going to gov them the same obligations.

Under Jono's system, schools are relieved of these inconvenient "obligations" such as the need to accept local students who cannot afford fees.

Capablanca-Fan
20-01-2009, 06:03 PM
Under Jono's system, schools are relieved of these inconvenient "obligations"
But in the Anointed's system, fairness to children is secondary to fairness to schools. I.e. it's not fair if the private school system isn't burdened by the same bureaucratic red tape that infests the government school system.


such as the need to accept local students who cannot afford fees.
As I said, vouchers would make it easier for poor families to afford decent private schools. But the Anointed don't want parents even to be able to choose what government school they are in, preferring allocating the schools by zoning. That way, said Sir Humphrey, everyone has an equal chance of getting the bad schools.

pax
21-01-2009, 01:05 PM
But in the Anointed's system, fairness to children is secondary to fairness to schools. I.e. it's not fair if the private school system isn't burdened by the same bureaucratic red tape that infests the government school system.

If the private sector wants the same money, they need to meet a similar standard of obligation.



As I said, vouchers would make it easier for poor families to afford decent private schools. But the Anointed don't want parents even to be able to choose what government school they are in, preferring allocating the schools by zoning. That way, said Sir Humphrey, everyone has an equal chance of getting the bad schools.

I don't know about this "annointed" you speak of, but as far as I know no children are "forced" to attend the local School by zoning. The only thing that zoning does is to ensure that there is always a school that must accept a particular student. Parents can apply to any public or private school, and may or may not be successful depending on vacancies, resources and fees - but they always know they can get into the local school if they need to.

Vouchers are not going to make a blind bit of difference to genuinely poor students trying to get into expensive schools since the fees at such schools are many times the level of government funding. The main thing vouchers will do is to take resources away from schools which are unable or unwilling to resort to expensive fees.

Capablanca-Fan
21-01-2009, 01:25 PM
If the private sector wants the same money, they need to meet a similar standard of obligation.
As the Yes Prime Minister episode said, parents will know if their kids can read, write and do sums. What we don't need is hamstringing private schools with red tape just because government schools are.


Vouchers are not going to make a blind bit of difference to genuinely poor students
They will have a disproportionate impact in favour of poorer families, since richer families don't need them as much. It's no accident that they are popular among US black families, but wealthy lefties like Comrade Obama oppose them because he can afford an expensive private education for his daughters.


trying to get into expensive schools since the fees at such schools are many times the level of government funding.
They will still help, as opposed to now when they are stuck with the government schools, no matter how bad. What happens now is that richer parents move to areas where they are zoned into a good-quality school.


The main thing vouchers will do is to take resources away from schools which are unable or unwilling to resort to expensive fees.
Take resources away? More likely, force schools to give the education that parents want for their children, so that parents will send their kids there. Once again, the Anointed one cares more about alleged unfairness to the institutions than what's best for children's education. As with other goods in society, the best products come when providers have to compete in an open market. And the advances that result benefit the poor more than the rich.

pax
21-01-2009, 02:27 PM
They will still help, as opposed to now when they are stuck with the government schools, no matter how bad. What happens now is that richer parents move to areas where they are zoned into a good-quality school.

Since private schools receive substantial Government funding under the current system, parents have more or less the same choices as they would under vouchers. The difference is that you would take money away from under resourced Government schools and give it to those who can afford an expensive private education.

Capablanca-Fan
21-01-2009, 05:34 PM
Since private schools receive substantial Government funding under the current system, parents have more or less the same choices as they would under vouchers.
Indeed, ex-PM Howard made this point to the Yanx.


The difference is that you would take money away from under resourced Government schools and give it to those who can afford an expensive private education.
No, I would stop giving the money to schools per se, and give it instead to parents per se to use specifically for educational purposes. Any school that can attract their children will do well. And it will enable more parents to afford a private education.

Capablanca-Fan
29-01-2009, 02:51 PM
The Smart Fiscal Choice (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDMyODQwZDFiNDFiYmRlMDE3NDM2NDYzNTU3Y2ViM2E=)
Vouchers reduce state expenditures on education, with no ill effects on student achievement.
by Marcus A. Winters
National Review Online, 21 Jan 209

Thanks to the financial crisis, every state in the union is trying to think of ways to save money without dramatically reducing government services. The dilemma is most painful in public education—which is one of the biggest expenditures in any given state, yet one of the most difficult to reduce: Children pay the price, in both their present learning environment and their future earning power.

There is, however, one approach to education reform that can avoid such trade-offs. School vouchers allow states to shrink expenditures at no cost to educational quality. In fact, quality probably rises under a voucher program.

The primary reason that vouchers save states money is that private schools cost less than public schools. According to U.S. Department of Education data from 2003–04, the most recent period for which figures are available, the average private-school student paid $6,600 in tuition; 85 percent of them paid less than $10,000. In contrast, the average per-pupil expenditure for public schools in the U. S. in that same year was $10,561. So while an individual student using a voucher decreases a state’s total public-school budget by $6,600 on average, their schools have one fewer student to teach. Assuming per-pupil spending remains constant, that voucher saves the state about $4,000.

...

School Tax Credit Can Help Kids and the State (http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9843)
by Adam B. Schaeffer (policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom).
Newark Star-Ledger, 15 December 2008.

...

New Jersey spends more than $18,500 a year on every student when you count all local school taxes and expenses like pension and health benefits. That figure doesn't even include huge sums spent on construction. A 1 percent drop in private school enrollment will put New Jersey governments on the hook for about $55 million a year; a 10 percent swing will require $550 million more in school spend ing. In contrast, the national me dian private school tuition is just over $4,000 and a little more than $5,000 when it's adjusted for New Jersey's higher income levels.

There is a way to avoid getting slammed by huge new demands for public school spending while saving money and improving education: A broad-based, moderate-size education tax credit would help families stay in private schools and save their children from burdening taxpayers with the public schools' (much greater) price tag. The credit would also help others make the switch to the private sector, easing the burden on taxpayers even more.

Education tax credits reduce the amount a taxpayer owes the government for each dollar he spends on his child's education or on scholarships for children who need them. That money comes straight off a person's tax liability, so it's a dollar-for-dollar benefit: You can send it to the government or use it on the kind of education you want to support. Tax credits for donations to scholarship organizations help support school choice for lower-income families, while personal-use credits help middle-class families send their children to good schools.

...

pax
29-01-2009, 03:38 PM
Do private schools receive no Government funding in the US?

Capablanca-Fan
29-01-2009, 05:37 PM
Do private schools receive no Government funding in the US?
I don't think so.

TheJoker
30-01-2009, 12:23 AM
OECD Education at a Glance 2008 (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/46/41284038.pdf)

A wealth of stats on educationin the oECD regions.

Unfourtunately unlike the 2007 version that compared the efficiency of public and private schools, the 2008 edition does not.

No mention of homeschooling

pax
30-01-2009, 01:27 AM
I don't think so.

Even if they receive nothing (which I doubt), it's still not an accurate comparison since many private schools will have sources of funding outside of fees (churches, bequests and so on) - so you can't simply say it is $X cheaper to educate in the private sector.

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2009, 01:54 PM
But what about the kids? (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/but_what_about_the_kids/)
Andrew Bolt
1 Feb 2009


So what’s on the Australian Education Union’s agenda at the start of this school year? School standards? More effective teaching? Let’s check its first E-letter to members for 2009. Highlights:



Two-thirds of the public believe the Rudd Government is not spending enough on public schools, according to a nationwide poll of 1000 people…

The AEU is backing an appeal by Union Aid Abroad–APHEDA to help rebuild Gaza and provide medical aid following three weeks of bombing and invasion which devastated the strip and left 1,300 dead (sic) and thousands wounded…

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex trade unionists will once again rally under the union banner at this year’s Pride march…

The AEU international committee meets twice a term to discuss and campaign on global social justice and environmental issues…

RMIT has launched two postgraduate programs in Applied Human Rights at the Australian Centre for Human Rights Education (ACHRE) ...

March 21 is Harmony Day and Victorian schools are being urged to use the occasion to celebrate the cultural diversity in their classes and communities....

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2009, 04:18 PM
Murdoch: Obama Should Take on Teacher Unions (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/murdoch_davos_teacher/2009/01/31/177216.html)

...

Murdoch criticized America's educational system for allowing 35 percent to 40 percent of all students to never complete high school. Those children, he said, are relegated to a permanent underclass.

"This is the greatest test for President Obama because this will be a great confrontation with the teacher unions ... they are a very, very rich union and a number one contributor to the Democratic Party," he said. "The president must have the courage and the strength to take on the teachers and win ... if the United States is going to continue to lead the world over the next 30 or 40 years, education must be the way."

Capablanca-Fan
30-05-2009, 01:45 PM
MORE than $3.6m is to be spent buying plaques and signs to ensure Australian schools display their gratitude to the Rudd Government for its education building blitz (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,27574,25557154-3102,00.html).

TheJoker
31-05-2009, 12:33 AM
Murdoch:

"This is the greatest test for President Obama because this will be a great confrontation with the teacher unions ... The president must have the courage and the strength to take on the teachers and win."

While Murdoch is spot on about education being the key. It's confrontational language like this that gives unions such great strength in the first place. Unions are a group of teachers you dont wage a war against teachers to get better education you work with them. You need to look for a concensus win-win outcome. If teachers are so important why aren't they being paid accordingly.

Performanced-based pay is probably a hot topic, most research indicates individual performance based pay is actually counter-productive. It's actually must better to have team-based performance pay, that way those individuals not pulling their weight are either marginalised by the team and leave or the team helps them improve their performance, no such incentive exists in individual performance-based pay.

Perhaps if Principals meeting performane targets were remunerated on a similar level to corporate CEOs we might see a marked improvement in performance. I think it's probably only at a university level that academics can earn a decent wage.

From January 1, 2009, the salaries for teachers of various classifications in NSW government schools will be as follows:

Four-year-trained teacher (eg BEd, BA/BTeach) – Salary Step 5
$52,745

Five-year-trained teacher (eg BA/MTeach, BSc/MTeach, BEd/BA, BEd/BSc) –
$55,458

Highest salary-scale classification of classroom teacher –
$78,667

Subject head teacher in a secondary school
$90,532

Deputy principal (secondary or primary school)
$105,703

Primary school principal (Grade 1)
$126,438

Secondary school principal (Grade 1)
$135,204

Hardly the sort of salaries to attract quality professionals (compared to what one might earn as a lawyer, doctor, engineer etc).

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2009, 10:42 AM
While Murdoch is spot on about education being the key. It's confrontational language like this that gives unions such great strength in the first place. Unions are a group of teachers you dont wage a war against teachers to get better education you work with them.
But "working with them" is code for giving in to all their demands. And as some leaders said, why should we care about the students; they don't pay union dues?


You need to look for a concensus win-win outcome. If teachers are so important why aren't they being paid accordingly.
They are paid plenty for a job that has such long holidays. Money is hardly the problem, since money has long been thrown at government schools with less and less performance.


Hardly the sort of salaries to attract quality professionals (compared to what one might earn as a lawyer, doctor, engineer etc).
More likely, quality professionals are repelled by the mickey-mouse compulsory courses at what passes for our colleges of education, and by the nonsense fads that have replaced maths with times tables, reading with phonics, history with dates, and literary classics.

TheJoker
01-06-2009, 12:51 PM
But "working with them" is code for giving in to all their demands.

Out of interest do you have a list of demands. It's hard to tell whether they are reasonable if they aren't being specified. Do you also have a list of proposed reforms so one might also judge if those are reasonable.



They are paid plenty for a job that has such long holidays. Money is hardly the problem.

Holidays or not its certainly not enough to attract quality talent, as evidenced by the low University entrance score requirements. The conditions don't seem enough to compensate for the low salary, according to the demand for education degrees. It all depends on what people value, extra holidays or extra salary.

You also need to consider the future economic value that is generated through education. As Murdoch said it is key to economic growth and productivity, yet those that manage it aren't being paid mega-bucks like investment bankers and CEOs. I'd still argue the services of education professionals are undervalued.


More likely, quality professionals are repelled by the mickey-mouse compulsory courses at what passes for our colleges of education.

I doubt HSC students making career plans consider such things when choosing Uni courses. My experience is that for HSC students these days the number one motivator is salary, hence the massive boom in IT graduates a few years back when shortages meant high salaries and the current boom in finance graduates (poor buggers).

Blaiming course content is simply a diversion, fact remains if teachers jobs had minimum salary of $100k quality applicants wouldn't be hard to come by. I think you will also find that people on high salaries have a lower tendency to unionise.

pax
02-06-2009, 02:57 PM
Perhaps if Principals meeting performane targets were remunerated on a similar level to corporate CEOs we might see a marked improvement in performance. I think it's probably only at a university level that academics can earn a decent wage.

In Australia, academic salaries are not a great deal higher than secondary teachers. E.g lecturers up to about $85k, SL up to $100k, Full prof up to $135k.

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2010, 02:56 AM
Keep Government Out of the Schools (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/jeff-jacoby/2010/06/01/keep-government-out-of-the-schools/)
By Jeff Jacoby
1 June 2010

The Texas State Board of Education this month approved new curriculum standards for US history and social studies. The standards — which dictate what will be taught in Texas public schools and incorporated in textbooks and achievement tests — include teaching students about the “unintended consequences’’ of the Great Society, the link between McCarthyism and “Soviet agent infiltration of the US government,’’ and how government regulations and taxes affect consumer prices. Critics (mostly liberal) blasted the new standards as a politicized travesty; supporters (mostly conservative) praised them as a long-overdue rebalancing. After months of debate, they were adopted on a party-line vote.



Again and again, Americans find themselves at war with each other over public schooling. Yet furious conflict over religion in this country is almost unheard-of. Why? Why don’t American Catholics and Protestants angrily attack each other’s views of clerical celibacy or papal infallibility? Why is there no bitter struggle between Orthodox and Reform Jews to control the content of the Sabbath liturgy? Why don’t American atheists clash with American believers over whether children should be taught to pray before going to sleep?

Americans presumably feel as strongly about religion as they do about education. So why does the endless variety of religious life in the United States lead to so little strife, while the strife over public schooling never seems to end?

The answer is no mystery. America is a land of religious freedom, in which people decide for themselves what to believe and how to worship. No religion is funded by government. Elected officials have no say in the doctrine of any faith or the content of any religious service. Religion flourishes in America because church and state are separate. And it flourishes so peacefully because no one is forced to support anyone else’s faith, or to attend a church he isn’t happy with, or to bring up children according to the religious views of whichever faction has the most votes.

Religion is peaceful because it is government-free. Liberate the schools, and they too would be at peace. Taxpayer-funded, one-curriculum-fits-all schooling makes conflict inevitable. There would be far less animosity if parents were as free to choose how and where their children learn as they are to choose how and where they worship.


TheJoker
02-06-2010, 02:02 PM
There would be far less animosity if parents were as free to choose how and where their children learn

Or perhaps there would be far less animosity if parent didn't see it as entitlement to have the public pay for the education of their children. But rather viewed public schools as a free service provided for by tax payers for those not fortunate enough to afford a private education. They might actually be grateful that they live in a country where such a service is provided.

Goughfather
02-06-2010, 02:04 PM
Again and again, Americans find themselves at war with each other over public schooling. Yet furious conflict over religion in this country is almost unheard-of. Why? Why don’t American Catholics and Protestants angrily attack each other’s views of clerical celibacy or papal infallibility? Why is there no bitter struggle between Orthodox and Reform Jews to control the content of the Sabbath liturgy? Why don’t American atheists clash with American believers over whether children should be taught to pray before going to sleep?

Jacoby is kidding, isn't he? Among other furious conflicts, hasn't he heard of ECUSA's place in the apparently civil discourse that is taking place in the Anglican Communion at the moment?

Of course, the implication of Jacoby's argument is that we should keep government out of any area where there is potential for "furious conflict". It might be a nice ideal to strive for those who seek to return to the age of feudalism, but it is an absolutely unworkable solution for everyone still residing on planet Earth.

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2010, 02:41 PM
Jacoby is kidding, isn't he? Among other furious conflicts, hasn't he heard of ECUSA's place in the apparently civil discourse that is taking place in the Anglican Communion at the moment?
Right, and here again, an internal matter, of interest mainly to those who have voluntarily supported the Anglicans/Episcopalians. This is no different in principle to any organization or even political party. Those who have donated have an interest in trying to keep their organization on track with what they believe.

But you don't have ECUSA fighting the Presbyterians, Catholics, Orthodox or Southern Baptists, precisely because all these organizations are voluntary. If any one was a state religion which others were forced to support with taxes, then there would be furious battles for control of the state religion.


Of course, the implication of Jacoby's argument is that we should keep government out of any area where there is potential for "furious conflict". It might be a nice ideal to strive for those who seek to return to the age of feudalism, but it is an absolutely unworkable solution for everyone still residing on planet Earth.
It's great for the real world rather than the rarified elitist circles certain academics, media blowhards and lawyer types wallow in. In the real world, we know there is no furious conflict between different religious groups in America, or any furious conflicts about what type of car to drive or computer to use. If the government subsidised PCs and Holdens, Mac and Toyota users would be resentful that they are forced to pay for computers and cars they don't use, as well as for their own. There are furious conflicts for the public schools precisely because parents are forced to pay tax dollars for indoctrination of kids into things they don't believe, such as the new Marxist history curriculum that KRudd's government wants to introduce in Australia (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/05/31/history-wars/), or the social(ist) studies in America as per Jacoby's first few paragraphs. If the government stayed out of education as it stays out of churches, computers and cars, there would be no battles, as parents would choose and pay for their own kids' education, not others'.

TheJoker
02-06-2010, 03:10 PM
Parents are forced to pay tax dollars for indoctrination of kids into things they don't believe.

In fact parents pay less tax than those without children (due to various rebates), so they are not paying any extra for the education of their children.

Tax payers as a whole are providing parents who cannot afford private education a service. Tax payers are not obligated to fund children's education. Tax payers a a whole will decide how they want to provide that service. Parents who do not like that service are entitled to find other ways to educate their children such as home schooling or private schooling, but they certainly shouldn't feel entitled to any public funding for that, again the tax payers as a whole will decide whether or not they want to fund such activities and how much. About time a few more parent's were grateful for the support offered by the rest of the community in educating their children.

Goughfather
02-06-2010, 09:03 PM
But you don't have ECUSA fighting the Presbyterians, Catholics, Orthodox or Southern Baptists, precisely because all these organizations are voluntary. If any one was a state religion which others were forced to support with taxes, then there would be furious battles for control of the state religion.

Granted, sectarianism is not nearly as bad as it once was, but it still exists, even in your spurious claim to hold to "true and biblical" Christianity. Within the lifetimes of many living today, the caveat to job advertisements "Catholics need not apply" was all too common and this without any kind of government interference. Indeed, it was only with government intervention in the 1970s that this kind of thing disappeared in Australia.


It's great for the real world rather than the rarified elitist circles certain academics, media blowhards and lawyer types wallow in.

Can you really say this when for some time now you have been wallowing in the rarified circles of selling creationist propaganda?


In the real world, we know there is no furious conflict between different religious groups in America

See above. Also note that the real world extends beyond America.


There are furious conflicts for the public schools precisely because parents are forced to pay tax dollars for indoctrination of kids into things they don't believe, such as the new Marxist history curriculum that KRudd's government wants to introduce in Australia (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/05/31/history-wars/), or the social(ist) studies in America as per Jacoby's first few paragraphs.

I think you've misunderstood the nature of the Texas textbook controversy. The problem was that Republicans were trying to impose their agenda into the history textbooks and whitewash history:

DJM6UsGM8Sk



If the government stayed out of education as it stays out of churches, computers and cars, there would be no battles, as parents would choose and pay for their own kids' education, not others'.

As TheJoker pointed out, parents have the right to choose to send their children to private schools or to homeschool them.

My main objection is simply that "furious conflict" occurs because of the scarcity of resources and because humans are political animals, there is disagreement about how these resources are to be allocated in a community. Wherever there is room for different positions, there will always be furious conflict - indeed such furious conflict is part of a democratic society.

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2010, 10:56 PM
Granted, sectarianism is not nearly as bad as it once was, but it still exists, even in your spurious claim to hold to "true and biblical" Christianity.
A claim you haven't even come close to disproving; you hold to leftardism with a pseudo-Christian gloss.


Within the lifetimes of many living today, the caveat to job advertisements "Catholics need not apply" was all too common and this without any kind of government interference. Indeed, it was only with government intervention in the 1970s that this kind of thing disappeared in Australia.
Now it's Bible-believers need not apply. Furthermore, most discrimination laws have been imposed by government against the wishes of businessmen who cared only about colour of the money. Jim Crow laws were definitely government imposed (by Democrats), while Minimum wage laws were enacted to keep blacks out of jobs, and they still have this effect even without the intention (Milton Friedman said that they were the most anti-black law in the books). Businessmen during the South African apartheid era regularly defied the government. Thomas Sowell, himself black, writes in Rosa Parks and history (http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/racism/4457-Rosa-Parks-Pursuit-Profit-Racism.html):


The incentives of the economic system and the incentives of the political system were not only different, they clashed. Private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws while these laws were being written, challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing those laws after they were upheld by the courts.
These tactics delayed the enforcement of Jim Crow seating laws for years in some places. Then company employees began to be arrested for not enforcing such laws and at least one president of a streetcar company was threatened with jail if he didn't comply.

John Stossel points out in Fight Bigotry Without Government (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/john-stossel/2010/06/02/fight-bigotry-without-government/):


I just don't trust government to decide what discrimination is acceptable. Its clumsy fist cannot deter private nonviolent racism without stomping on the rights of individuals. Today, because of government antidiscrimination policy, all-women gyms are sued and forced to admit men, a gay softball team is told it may not reject bisexuals and a Christian wedding photographer is fined thousands of dollars for refusing to take photos of a homosexual wedding.

I'll say it again: Racial discrimination is bad. But we have ways besides government to end it. The free market often punishes racists. Today, a business that doesn't hire blacks loses customers and good employees. It will atrophy, while its more inclusive competitors thrive.

In the pre-1964 South, things were different. But even then, private forces worked against bigotry. White owners of railroads and streetcars objected to mandated segregation. Historian Jennifer Roback writes that in 1902 the Mobile Light and Railroad Company "flat out refused to enforce" Mobile, Alabama's segregation law.

In cities throughout the South, beginning in 1960, student-led sit-ins and boycotts peacefully shamed businesses into desegregating whites-only lunch counters. Those voluntary actions were the first steps in changing a rancid culture. If anything, Washington jumped on a bandwagon that was already rolling.

It wasn't free markets in the South that perpetuated racism. It was government colluding with private individuals (some in the KKK) to intimidate those who would have integrated.

It was private action that started challenging the racists, and it was succeeding — four years before the Civil Rights Act passed.


Can you really say this when for some time now you have been wallowing in the rarified circles of selling creationist propaganda?
In my job, I must read the other side; my books have refuted the best the evolutionists and compromising churchians have to offer (NAS, Dawkins, Hugh Ross). It's inescapable anyway, given that the educracy and media are saturated with evolutionism.


See above. Also note that the real world extends beyond America.
I couldn't agree more, and regularly try to educate Americans about that, e.g. Australia's superior preferential voting system, superannuation and dividend imputation systems.


I think you've misunderstood the nature of the Texas textbook controversy. The problem was that Republicans were trying to impose their agenda into the history textbooks and whitewash history:
No, they are trying to counter the Democrat-affiliated teachers unions' leftist propaganda with their black armband view of history, and their lies about FDR rescuing America from the Depression when he actually prolongued it, and other pro-union, anti-Christian nonsense.


[As TheJoker pointed out, parents have the right to choose to send their children to private schools or to homeschool them.
They still pay for the leftard christophobic indoctrination in the government schools.


My main objection is simply that "furious conflict" occurs because of the scarcity of resources and because humans are political animals, there is disagreement about how these resources are to be allocated in a community. Wherever there is room for different positions, there will always be furious conflict — indeed such furious conflict is part of a democratic society.
Which is why the government should stay out of it. The less control they have over the economy, the less conflict there will be, as fewer people will be forced to spend money on something they don't want (again, take cars and computers).

TheJoker
03-06-2010, 12:00 PM
They still pay for the leftard christophobic indoctrination in the government schools.

Not true as pointed out above parents tends to pay less tax than non-parents due to various rebates (at least in Australia) so they do not pay extra tax for public education. Public funded education is a service (not an entitlement) offered by the tax payers for parents who cannot afford to privately school their children. Parents should be grateful that the wider community provides this service for them else their children not get an education at all. If I where in that situation I'd be grateful that the community was willing to invest their hard earned in my children's education.

If you cannot afford to privately school your children stop blaming the government and start looking at yourself and why you are failing to generate the necessary income to provide for your children.

Desmond
03-06-2010, 12:10 PM
If you cannot afford to privately school your children stop blaming the government and start looking at yourself and why you are failing to generate the necessary income to provide for your children.That's a bit harsh.

TheJoker
03-06-2010, 12:18 PM
That's a bit harsh.

True, I should have added or be grateful for the public service that is provided to you.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 03:27 PM
If you cannot afford to privately school your children stop blaming the government and start looking at yourself and why you are failing to generate the necessary income to provide for your children.

I guess paying for other children education (through tax) will be one of the reasons.

TheJoker
03-06-2010, 03:51 PM
I guess paying for other children education (through tax) will be one of the reasons.

Seems like a flawed argument to me, considering private education is more expensive per student than public education, I doubt abolishing tax payer funded education could possibly result in a tax saving that would cover the cost of private education. Remember you'd also be abolishing the tax payer funding that goes to private schools, so you would expect that there fees would go up in accordingly. Secondly, the tax saving would be spread across all tax payers, whereas now the funding is concerntrated to parents.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 05:42 PM
Secondly, the tax saving would be spread across all tax payers, whereas now the funding is concerntrated to parents.
No, they are not. They are concentrated to schools.
Some sort of voucher system would see it concentrated to parents.
I don't mind redistribution through taxation to some extent, but I do mind government running or subsidising business.

TheJoker
03-06-2010, 06:04 PM
No, they are not. They are concentrated to schools.
Some sort of voucher system would see it concentrated to parents.
I don't mind redistribution through taxation to some extent, but I do mind government running or subsidising business.

I have covered the inefficiency of voucher system elsewhere but I'll cut and paste here for your benefit:


Not at all a voucher system does not consider the current resources a school already has or ability to source funding from the private sector. Secondly, a voucher system is a waste of government resources because it involves the parents as a middle-man unecessarily. If you want to go down the equal funding path, the best way is to fund schools (public and private) directly with based on enrolements. Again like I said this is inefficient and ineffective because some schools will end up being over resourced (due to existing resources or private funding).

The whole point of public funding of education is not to recycle tax dollars, but to ensure universal access to education. Any voucher, although it is a dumb idea, should therefore be means tested, that way you would reduce the overall tax burden of education and reduce the uneccessary recyling.

Problem is the Government doesn't have the balls to say were are only going to fund those schools that are under-resourced and that we will focus on efficiency of education spending rather than total number of dollars spent. Part of the reason is that there aren't any objective measures of education on a national level, so its difficult for the government to sayyes we've decreased spending but we've maintained or increased outcomes. I expect that reducing public funding to some of the most exclusive private schools (who aren't short a quid) would have no effect on their education outcomes since they generate enough private funding to provide for their students.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 09:48 PM
I have covered the inefficiency of voucher system elsewhere but I'll cut and paste here for your benefit:
That's your opinion, and quite baseless one.


Not at all a voucher system does not consider the current resources a school already has or ability to source funding from the private sector.
What is it based on?


Secondly, a voucher system is a waste of government resources because it involves the parents as a middle-man unecessarily.
Involving education department bureaucrat is much bigger waste, and I have much more interest in my children education then any government worker.


If you want to go down the equal funding path, the best way is to fund schools (public and private) directly with based on enrolements.

How is materially different from the voucher system (unless you restrict parents choice in school)



Again like I said this is inefficient and ineffective because some schools will end up being over resourced (due to existing resources or private funding).

The whole point of public funding of education is not to recycle tax dollars, but to ensure universal access to education. Any voucher, although it is a dumb idea, should therefore be means tested, that way you would reduce the overall tax burden of education and reduce the uneccessary recyling.

Problem is the Government doesn't have the balls to say were are only going to fund those schools that are under-resourced and that we will focus on efficiency of education spending rather than total number of dollars spent. Part of the reason is that there aren't any objective measures of education on a national level, so its difficult for the government to sayyes we've decreased spending but we've maintained or increased outcomes. I expect that reducing public funding to some of the most exclusive private schools (who aren't short a quid) would have no effect on their education outcomes since they generate enough private funding to provide for their students
Here under-resource is the euphemism for wasteful/poor management, and over-resourced is the euphemism for well run/attractive to parents.
Attack on "rich private school" is nothing new, very similar to slogan "tax the rich". Do you reckon they are rich because money fall from the sky, or there could be some other reasons?

TheJoker
04-06-2010, 10:31 AM
That's your opinion, and quite baseless one.

Not at all baseless as pointed out by the fact it is inefficient compared to funding schools directly, and that it is ineffective in that it does not deliver resources where they are most needed.


What is it based on?

Obviously some schools already have significant capital resources and are therefore in less need of funding than those that don't have the capital resources. It's less effective to give money to a school that can't invest it in a meaningful way, or has access to significant private resources.



Involving education department bureaucrat is much bigger waste, and I have much more interest in my children education then any government worker.

Are you proposing that all current public schools be shut down? Otherwise the education department will still exist, on top of the voucher distribution and control bureaucracy.



How is materially different from the voucher system (unless you restrict parents choice in school).

Obviously it doesn't involve the unneccesary process of issuing and redeeming vouchers. Can you see how that is far more efficient? IIRC that is similar to what already happens in Australia funding is partly determined by the number of enrolments



Here under-resource is the euphemism for wasteful/poor management, and over-resourced is the euphemism for well run/attractive to parents.

No I am talking about resources employed. Under resourced means that total increasing the dollars of capital investment and recurrent spending would create a marginal benefit greater than the marginal cost. Over resourced means that increasing capital investment and recurrent spending will create a marginal benefit less than the marginal cost.

Some private schools use up to twice the funding resources (combined public and private resources) of public schools yet its a public school, last time I check that was atop of the NSW HSC rankings. That's not even considering the capital investments.


Attack on "rich private school" is nothing new, very similar to slogan "tax the rich". Do you reckon they are rich because money fall from the sky, or there could be some other reasons?

Not at all, I am happy for private schools to exist, I see no reason why they shouldn't in fact I think they are a great benefit to the system. What I don't see is why I should contribute funds, as a tax payer to a private school that has no real need for them and where the extra cash is unlikley to provide much benefit in terms of the level of education of the students. I am quite happy to provide funding to private schools that are lacking funding and capital resources. It's a case of me wanting to reduce the overall tax burden of education, and getting the best value for each public dollar spent. A voucher system is not going to do that, unless it takes into the schools existing resources.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-06-2010, 02:20 PM
Not at all baseless as pointed out by the fact it is inefficient compared to funding schools directly, and that it is ineffective in that it does not deliver resources where they are most needed.
It's efficient for any other business (in a non-government controlled industry, of course), yet inefficient in education?



Obviously some schools already have significant capital resources and are therefore in less need of funding than those that don't have the capital resources. It's less effective to give money to a school that can't invest it in a meaningful way, or has access to significant private resources.

To have higher capital or "access to significant private resources" the school must be much more appealing to students and parents.
Again, it's akin telling to successfully business:
You don't need that much money, we'll take 100,000 from you and will give it to a struggling business across the road. That would be effective, wouldn't it?



Are you proposing that all current public schools be shut down? Otherwise the education department will still exist, on top of the voucher distribution and control bureaucracy.

No. Most of them will slowly be replaced by private schools (or bought out).
I hope government will have enough sense to decrease the size of education department when public school enrolment drops.



Obviously it doesn't involve the unneccesary process of issuing and redeeming vouchers. Can you see how that is far more efficient?
Indeed, huge saving.


IIRC that is similar to what already happens in Australia funding is partly determined by the number of enrolments
Sorry, but you do not recall correctly. Enrolments is just a part of funding formula, and funding for private schools is significantly lower then for public schools. I'd be quite happy if funding was a fixed amount per student irrespectively of school status.



No I am talking about resources employed. Under resourced means that total increasing the dollars of capital investment and recurrent spending would create a marginal benefit greater than the marginal cost. Over resourced means that increasing capital investment and recurrent spending will create a marginal benefit less than the marginal cost.

And who is going to do cost/benefit analysis? The same bureaucrat presiding over BER? Or different bureacrat? Maybe someone with own money at stake will be better suited for that task.



Some private schools use up to twice the funding resources (combined public and private resources) of public schools yet its a public school, last time I check that was atop of the NSW HSC rankings. That's not even considering the capital investments.

If and when it's the case, they will be punished by parents. One thing Gillard can be applauded for is myschool website. If they also release full picture of VCE/HSC exams, it'll be great.



Not at all, I am happy for private schools to exist, I see no reason why they shouldn't in fact I think they are a great benefit to the system. What I don't see is why I should contribute funds, as a tax payer to a private school that has no real need for them and where the extra cash is unlikley to provide much benefit in terms of the level of education of the students. I am quite happy to provide funding to private schools that are lacking funding and capital resources. It's a case of me wanting to reduce the overall tax burden of education, and getting the best value for each public dollar spent. A voucher system is not going to do that, unless it takes into the schools existing resources.
But who is going to determine whether school needs money or not?
Why do I have to pay so much for the fruits when farmer does not need much money?

None of your arguments demonstrated why government should run education.

TheJoker
04-06-2010, 04:10 PM
It's efficient for any other business (in a non-government controlled industry, of course), yet inefficient in education?.

Sorry but which other business can pay for products or services with vouchers issued by a third party I am just curious.



To have higher capital or "access to significant private resources" the school must be much more appealing to students and parents.

More appealing to a certain segment of parents. They don't necessary have the highest enrolments.


Again, it's akin telling to successfully business:
You don't need that much money, we'll take 100,000 from you and will give it to a struggling business across the road. That would be effective, wouldn't it?

That happens all time in coporate business portfolio's money is taken from poriftable businesses (product lines) that have limited opportunities to scale or become more efficient and invested in businesses (products) that have the potential to increase results with the extra investment. If you are set on the business analogy I sugesst you do some reading on the BCG matrix.


No. Most of them will slowly be replaced by private schools (or bought out).
I hope government will have enough sense to decrease the size of education department when public school enrolment drops.

I don't think so private schools are only going to serve the profitable segment of market. The government will be left to service the rest of the market.



Indeed, huge saving.

Exacty vouchers are inefficient funding should continue to be provided directly to schools



Sorry, but you do not recall correctly. Enrolments is just a part of funding formula.

What part of "partly based on enrolments" don't you understand?


If and when it's the case, they will be punished by parents. One thing Gillard can be applauded for is myschool website. If they also release full picture of VCE/HSC exams, it'll be great.

Not so because "brand name" private schools provide additional benefits beyond education, as they signal to employers the type of social connections you are likely to have. They might have other facilities not related to education such as swmming pools, boarding facilities etc.



But who is going to determine whether school needs money or not?.

The ones who can put it to best use and provide demonstratable increases in educational outcomes (test scores).

In addition, the poorly performing schools should be analysed to determine what is affecting their performance. Although often I think it has to do with demographics of the area.


None of your arguments demonstrated why government should run education.

Because I was arguing why we shouldn't adopt a funding system that provides equal funding to every student enrolment regardless of circumstance. The need to have public run schools is another matter entirely.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-06-2010, 04:50 PM
Sorry but which other business can pay for products or services with vouchers issued by a third party I am just curious.

You are the one insisting on government funding for education




More appealing to a certain segment of parents. They don't necessary have the highest enrolments.
And the problem is?




That happens all time in coporate business portfolio's money is taken from poriftable businesses (product lines) that have limited opportunities to scale or become more efficient and invested in businesses (products) that have the potential to increase results with the extra investment. If you are set on the business analogy I sugesst you do some reading on the BCG matrix.

Only if both businesses have the same owner. But the government is not effective owner.



I don't think so private schools are only going to serve the profitable segment of market. The government will be left to service the rest of the market.
Any segment is profitable, especially with vouchers.


Not so because "brand name" private schools provide additional benefits beyond education, as they signal to employers the type of social connections you are likely to have. They might have other facilities not related to education such as swmming pools, boarding facilities etc.

Again, it's for parents to decide whether they want to pay extra premium for that, not for you, me or anyone else.



In addition, the poorly performing schools should be analysed to determine what is affecting their performance. Although often I think it has to do with demographics of the area.

Incentive to do it will help. How many decades current system tolerated it?



The need to have public run schools is another matter entirely.
No, it's not. It is a cornerstone of the problem.

If government butts out from running the school, there'll be two funding models:
1. Directly to school
2. Directly to parents.

First model can only work in case of equal funding per student. If you want means-tested funding, seconf model will have to be adopted.

TheJoker
04-06-2010, 05:21 PM
You are the one insisting on government funding for education.

AFAIK nowhere in this argument nowhere have I insisted that education should be publically funded (although I do believe that public funding of education is beneficial).




And the problem is?

No problem just clearing up a product or service capable of achieving the highest price is not necesarrily the one with the most appeal.




Only if both businesses have the same owner. But the government is not effective owner.

Government is however responsible for trying to get the best value for tax payers just like corporate head office for shareholders. Ownership seems irrelevant to me.




Any segment is profitable, especially with vouchers.

Not true, current government schools generate zero profit, given the current cash rate of 6% they would need to be able to generate in excess of that before they could attract private capital investment.


Again, it's for parents to decide whether they want to pay extra premium for that, not for you, me or anyone else.

That's fine and recognise their right to do that, just don't tell me I (as a tax payer) have to chip in to help them out.

Providing public funding to people or organisations who don't need it (essentially recycling tax dollars) is akin to paying everyone a dole benefit regardless of whether they are unemployed or not.



Incentive to do it will help. How many decades current system tolerated it?

You might find that there aren't any easy solutions.



No, it's not. It is a cornerstone of the problem.

If government butts out from running the school, there'll be two funding models:
1. Directly to school
2. Directly to parents.

First model can only work in case of equal funding per student. If you want means-tested funding, seconf model will have to be adopted.

No first model can work without equal funding, it can work based on investing the funding where it is going to provide the most benefit. That's the approach I'd go for.

I don't see how public ownership of schools prevents either of those models.

Goughfather
05-06-2010, 12:14 AM
I would be interested in the answers from the Dickensians in this thread to these questions:

(1) What characteristics would you consider to constitute a quality secondary school education?

(2) Should a quality secondary school education be accessible to all children, regardless of the ability of their parents to pay for this education?

(3) Does the current public education system offer a quality secondary school education? Why or why not?

(4) Under your proposed "voucher" system, how much is paid to the parents for each child? If different vouchers are given to different parents, what is the basis for this differentiation? Use actual figures and be specific.

(5) How does the total cost of honouring these vouchers compare with the current educational funding arrangements? Use actual figures and be specific.

(6) How is this system administered? What additional cost is incurred in the administration of this system? Use actual figures and be specific.

(7) Who controls the content of the syllabus? Once a parent has made a decision to send a child to a particular school, what continued involvement are they permitted to have into educational experience of their child?

(8) To who are schools accountable? Who deals with misconduct?

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2010, 02:18 AM
I would be interested in the answers from the Dickensians in this thread to these questions:
As I've pointed out, the reason that Dickensian conditions no longer obtain in England and America is not leftist government but the great increase in productivity that capitalism made possible.


(1) What characteristics would you consider to constitute a quality secondary school education?
Not up to me, but to parents. I likewise have an idea of the best diet for kids, but we don't make laws requiring a certain diet. Rather, we prosecute parents who have malnourished kids. This should be so for education: if there is demonstrable maleducation, take action, but otherwise it should not be a matter for government.


(2) Should a quality secondary school education be accessible to all children, regardless of the ability of their parents to pay for this education?
That would be possible with vouchers.


(3) Does the current public education system offer a quality secondary school education? Why or why not?
No. One reason is the one-size-fits-all curriculum. Educrats decide that the look-and-guess method of supposedly teaching reading is right, then that's what the kids get taught. Some parents might notice that their kids are not learning to read and right, so would choose a return to a more phonics-based system that worked for them ("b makes the buh sound", etc.). Similarly with memorization of times tables v new maths.

One problem now is a proposed "history" curriculum strongly influenced by the Marxist bias of the proposers (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/05/31/history-wars/). Hence many important historical events are omitted, and everything is "black armband" and pro-union garbage. Parents should not be forced to have their kids endure a statist indoctrination program masquerading as education.


(4) Under your proposed "voucher" system, how much is paid to the parents for each child? If different vouchers are given to different parents, what is the basis for this differentiation? Use actual figures and be specific.
No need. In America where vouchers have been tried, the cost per child is less than in the government school system. Another idea is instead of taxing parents to pay for government schooling, parents receive the equivalent tax credits per child.


(5) How does the total cost of honouring these vouchers compare with the current educational funding arrangements? Use actual figures and be specific.
See What Would A School Voucher Buy? The Real Cost Of Private Schools (http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-025.html):


Education Department figures show that the average private elementary school tuition in America is less than $2,500. The average tuition for all private schools, elementary and secondary, is $3,116, or less than half of the cost per pupil in the average public school, $6,857. A survey of private schools in Indianapolis, Jersey City, San Francisco, and Atlanta shows that there are many options available to families with $3,000 to spend on a child's education. Even more options would no doubt appear if all parents were armed with $3,000 vouchers.


(6) How is this system administered? What additional cost is incurred in the administration of this system? Use actual figures and be specific.
See above article. There is less administrative cost than in the bloated government educracy.


(7) Who controls the content of the syllabus? Once a parent has made a decision to send a child to a particular school, what continued involvement are they permitted to have into educational experience of their child?
As pointed out in Yes Prime Minister on a related scheme, parents soon know if their kids are well behaved and safe, know how to read, write and do sums, as well as succeed in exams. After all, we choose our doctors based on quality. See video clip below (starts around 4:45):
koC1rViYaOU


(8) To who are schools accountable? Who deals with misconduct?
If parents have vouchers or spendable tax credits, then the schools are very accountable because parents can vote with their feet. Just the same way that they hold shops, restaurants, computer and car stores accountable. Conversely, in the USSR, customers did not have this option because the stores were government run—it's no accident that American government schools are as crappy as Soviet shops, and for the same reason: lack of competition.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2010, 02:26 AM
Attack on "rich private school" is nothing new, very similar to slogan "tax the rich". Do you reckon they are rich because money fall from the sky, or there could be some other reasons?
Leftards like The Joke speak as if there is a magic pot of wealth that was created somehow, and a wealth distribution fairy unfairly distributing it. In reality, wealth was created mostly by people who started poor but figured out a way to give many people what they wanted and were prepared to pay for with their own money. Further, wealth is hardly distributed at all; people create it, save it, invest it and spend it.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2010, 02:39 AM
Not true as pointed out above parents tends to pay less tax than non-parents due to various rebates (at least in Australia) so they do not pay extra tax for public education. Public funded education is a service (not an entitlement) offered by the tax payers for parents who cannot afford to privately school their children.
Actually, in America, as documented in my post above, private schools cost less per pupil than the government ones. And in America, unlike Australia, there is no tax deduction for private education. Australia's system is much fairer and more efficient, but still way short of education vouchers or tax credits.

It would also mean the end of education wars such as the current history war in Australia. Those parents who wanted Marxist indoctrination for their kids could choose schools that follow that curriculum, but other parents wouldn't worry since their own kids would not be affected—any more than they are by their choice of doctor.

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2010, 06:05 AM
It's notable that homeschoolers in America regularly win the Spelling Bee and National Geography Bee competitions (http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200305/200305300.asp). The educrats tried to explain this away by saying they had an unfair advantage over public schoolers because they had the opportunity to study more.

Don't want that study to interfere with all the leftist, politically correct, black armband, social(ist) engineering and fornication sex education done in the public schools.

Adamski
06-06-2010, 10:47 AM
That Yes PM clip Jono posted is a classic. I recall the whole episode well. It was a scream. It turned out that St. Margaret's College was using stolen goods for their stools etc., but it all turned out ok in the end.

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2010, 11:55 PM
The Secular State’s Homeschooling Crackdown (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/12/03/the-secular-state%E2%80%99s-homeschooling-crackdown/)
Bill Muehlenberg, 3 Dec 2010

“Among the major findings: Homeschooled students earned a higher first-year GPA (3.41) when compared to other freshman (3.12). Homeschooled students earned a higher fourth-year GPA (3.46) when compared to other freshman who completed their fourth year (3.16). Homeschooled students achieved a higher graduation rate (66.7 percent) when compared to the overall student population (57.5 percent).

“Other research has shown that parents spend on average $500 per child, per year to homeschool. In comparison, the average public school spends over $10,000 per child, per year. Homeschooling is proving itself everyday to be a credible and cost-effective method of educating children.”

antichrist
04-12-2010, 07:05 AM
Jono, this is no different to your other threads re welfare, you want people with fortunes (always a crime behind them) to have to pay less tax via not building schools, not having to pay properly trained teachers etc etc

I am sure that many of the brain dead individuals I come across in my life would make excellent teachers for their kids. We have to import foreign professionals coz so many of youngsters are on drugs, how can they teach children anything - at least at school their may be government intervention if they notice undernourishment, abuse etc.

But that government would cost money - sorry I apologise

Desmond
04-12-2010, 07:08 AM
The Secular State’s Homeschooling Crackdown (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/12/03/the-secular-state%E2%80%99s-homeschooling-crackdown/)
Bill Muehlenberg, 3 Dec 2010

“Among the major findings: Homeschooled students earned a higher first-year GPA (3.41) when compared to other freshman (3.12). Homeschooled students earned a higher fourth-year GPA (3.46) when compared to other freshman who completed their fourth year (3.16). Homeschooled students achieved a higher graduation rate (66.7 percent) when compared to the overall student population (57.5 percent).

“Other research has shown that parents spend on average $500 per child, per year to homeschool. In comparison, the average public school spends over $10,000 per child, per year. Homeschooling is proving itself everyday to be a credible and cost-effective method of educating children.”
Major findings of what? He says, "One report says..." but does not name the report.

And who is this guy anyway? Can't seem to find a bio on his blog. Did find an article on "Should We Read the Bible Literally?" though.

Where do you find these dudes Jono?

antichrist
04-12-2010, 07:10 AM
Major findings of what? He says, "One report says..." but does not name the report.

And who is this guy anyway? Can't seem to find a bio on his blog. Did find an article on "Should We Read the Bible Literally?" though.

Where do you find these dudes Jono?


Boris, we all know coz they don't want their children to know that we come from common ancestory as apes - that, now hold your breath, there is no God

Desmond
04-12-2010, 07:45 AM
And who is this guy anyway?Ah silly me, there's a clue right on the blog front page.


For those wishing to contribute to this ministry by direct debit, here are our banking details

He's a minister. And he needs money!

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2010, 07:48 AM
Ah silly me, there's a clue right on the blog front page.


For those wishing to contribute to this ministry by direct debit, here are our banking details

He's a minister. And he needs money!
Oh shock horror. No atheopath group ever asks for money, does it?

How about dealing with the actual arguments raised instead of wallowing in the wake of AC's trolling?

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2010, 07:50 AM
Jono, this is no different to your other threads re welfare, you want people with fortunes (always a crime behind them)
More envy mongering by a loser. No, most fortunes have been made by finding out what lots of people want, then delivering it at a price they are willing to pay.


to have to pay less tax via not building schools,
Yes, because money is best spent by those who earned it rather than by politicians and bureaucrats.


not having to pay properly trained teachers etc etc
Since money has already been poured into government education, but kids' education gets worse and worse.

Basil
04-12-2010, 08:00 AM
Jono, this is no different to your other threads re welfare, you want people with fortunes (always a crime behind them) to have to pay less tax via not building schools, not having to pay properly trained teachers etc etc
Peter this is the sort of dumbo-distortion that fuels hippies into a lifetime of cluelessness and misplaced activism.

Your assertion of people > crime > fortune etc has much basis in many cases (although more often with corporations). However, the proportion of individuals who have amassed 'a fortune' this way is very, very small compared to number of people that hold conservative social beliefs in general.

Your conveniently folding of this crime/ fortune mantra to support an argument against the genuinely-held belief of average Jo's, if the sort of mindless rhetoric that makes people like me vote for the mandatory mass high-pressure hosing of hippies on sight.

Desmond
04-12-2010, 08:04 AM
Oh shock horror. No atheopath group ever asks for money, does it?

How about dealing with the actual arguments raised instead of wallowing in the wake of AC's trolling?And the report referred to is...? You quoted unsourced figures. For all I know they are made up.

antichrist
04-12-2010, 01:19 PM
Peter this is the sort of dumbo-distortion that fuels hippies into a lifetime of cluelessness and misplaced activism.

Your assertion of people > crime > fortune etc has much basis in many cases (although more often with corporations). However, the proportion of individuals who have amassed 'a fortune' this way is very, very small compared to number of people that hold conservative social beliefs in general.

Your conveniently folding of this crime/ fortune mantra to support an argument against the genuinely-held belief of average Jo's, if the sort of mindless rhetoric that makes people like me vote for the mandatory mass high-pressure hosing of hippies on sight.


Well I do come from Byron Bay so allowances must be made for me.

I also wish you would get that hose out for a few of those hippies around here don't wash - I will pay for a soap additive.

A popular famous OAM business guy we all know [not chess related-mod], happened to use underhand methods to make his first few million (and maybe later as well). Well 40 years later that has caused a lot of troubles, financial and otherwise. I happened to met someone who worked for him 40 years ago and he told he that he walked out on this so and so exactly coz of underhand methods he was using that he could not stomach.

He should be jailed not make an Order Of Australia Merit.

I know of many other cases of crimes behind fortunes.

antichrist
04-12-2010, 01:22 PM
Okay Jono, how are relatively uneducated parents going to teach children the highest level maths, biology (don't need that all creationists), engish, science etc etc. What about their jobs to pay for themselves and their contribution to society. How can they do justice to either?

You are a nut, short and to the point

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2010, 06:10 AM
Okay Jono, how are relatively uneducated parents going to teach children the highest level maths, biology (don't need that all creationists), engish, science etc etc.
Well, somehow it's OK for relatively uneducated school teachers to do it. There are many maths and science teachers lacking degrees in these subjects, and in any case, education graduates typically have the lowest grades of any graduates.

Some homeschooling parents are better qualified than the teachers.

The proof is the consistently higher scores of homeschoolers than those subjected to the atrocious government schools in America. See for example New Nationwide Study Confirms Homeschool Academic Achievement (http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200908100.asp) (2009).


What about their jobs to pay for themselves and their contribution to society. How can they do justice to either?
What are you on about? We would save millions of dollars by dismantling the government educracy.

Rincewind
07-12-2010, 08:53 AM
Well, somehow it's OK for relatively uneducated school teachers to do it. There are many maths and science teachers lacking degrees in these subjects,

Most teachers do and even those that do not generally have education degrees and are qualified to teach. Surprising as it may seem, those who know the most about a topic (say a professor) is not the most capable to teach that subject at the primary or secondary level.


and in any case, education graduates typically have the lowest grades of any graduates.

Again you fall into the trap of equating highest grades in a subject with most capable of teaching primary and secondary level courses. It is important that the teachers know their subject but they don't need to be star students at advanced level topics in the subject. Knowing how to teach is a much more useful skill.


Some homeschooling parents are better qualified than the teachers.

Those presently homeschooling are a self-selected group and so I would expect that they are better than the general population of parents. However, even from this group - very few parents are better qualified than the teachers and those that are would generally be teachers themselves. However while knowing how to teacher their technical knowledge of all subjects (sciences, maths, english, foreign languages, history, geography, economics, etc) would not exceed that of the teachers from those faculties in even the most modest of state funded schools.


The proof is the consistently higher scores of homeschoolers than those subjected to the atrocious government schools in America. See for example New Nationwide Study Confirms Homeschool Academic Achievement (http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200908100.asp) (2009).

That link doesn't work for me at present. However I assume finding a study on the HSLDA website that supports homeschooling is not particularly hard. Furthermore, even if it does "work" in the present homeschooling scales, it does not mean the system is a viable alternative to ALL state eduction.


What are you on about? We would save millions of dollars by dismantling the government educracy.

Infeasible as already mentioned.

The danger with homeschooling is that if the numbers were large that the instances of poorly or inappropriately educated students would increase leading to a greater number of students with more difficult access to higher education.

I also suspect that a lot of the religion based support for homeschooling (like the HSLDA) comes from the desire to brainwash children and they figure non technical parents easier* to convince that (say) intelligent design (or whatever it is being called now since the shelf-life of that term has lapsed) is a viable scientific position.


* easier than say a judge - as in the case of Kitzmiller v Dover