The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > School ownership > Comments

School ownership : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 4/11/2014

Governments should ensure that a great education is available to every poor kid in Australia. But there is no need for governments to own a single school or employ a single teacher to achieve this.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Ha, yes, I know this line of thought. Everything is going to be privatized and market forces will determine the outcome. It is currently permeating the disability sector. Home Care will be handed over to a multinational like Bupa and everyone will have his or her own "package". The NSW government is divesting itself of all its property and will provide no services when the NDIS starts. The question remains unanswered: where will all those difficult clients that no-one wants go? The same as the difficult children who won't easily fit within the private model. There always has to be a provider of last resort. And who maintains the schools and builds the new ones? In the same way as there is no provision for housing within the NDIS, so where will the people live?
Posted by estelles, Tuesday, 4 November 2014 10:11:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Risible nonsense David, except were you say we need to means test government support.
Compete local autonomy will achieve everything you want and more, and indeed, save the taxpayer a huge bucket of finite funds.
Privatization is invariably followed by the profit incentive; possibly all at the taxpayers' expense!?
And as Estelle has pragmatically pointed out, who will build all the new schools in all the new suburbs!? Well?
There ought to be at least three signs on every pollies desk.
The first should read, "its the economy stupid", and the second should read, "keep it simple stupid"! And the third, "if it ain't broke don't fix it"! Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 4 November 2014 11:37:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The whole of society benefits when children are educated. This is why governments attempt to promote school education by making schooling compulsory for ages six through sixteen, and by regulating schools, including what must be taught. This should continue."

If this is not SOCIALISM, then I have no clue what is!

So because the author fancies living in an educated society, he deems it OK to incarcerate all children for 11 years. Further, the author acknowledges that he wishes to forcibly indoctrinate children by having them compulsorily taught some specific ideas (he didn't mentioned which): if they or their parents attempt to resist, as even allowing one's children to remain in bed is criminalised, then they will be arrested - and if they resist arrest, then they will be shot and killed as well...

If this comes from a senator who is presumably a libertarian... I guess the other politicians would rather send our children straight to Guantanamo - or has our good senator already, within a few months, been infected by the surrounding politicians in Canberra?

As the saying goes, those who have been abused in their childhood, grow up to become perpetrators themselves.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 4 November 2014 11:54:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The senator needs to learn some of the history of earlier depredations of the church and private enterprise and the give some thought to the proper role of government. He could start by reading about some of the resistance to efforts to develop infrastructure and make services available which together ultimately benefited the whole of society.

To understand the role of government he could read Professor Mariana Mazzucato's excellent book, "The Entrepreneurial State" subtitled, "Debunking Public vs. Public Sector Myths." That book shows conclusively that USA prosperity from 1938 to the advent of Thatcherism was due mainly to the central government's expenditure and research.

The devotion that the currency issuing Australian Government gives to "fixing" the budget is completely misplaced. Australia's problems are mainly due to our Current Account deficiencies which will only get decidedly worse as the car industry closes, we lose the ability to manufacture rail rolling stock, farm machinery, consumer white goods and to refine our liquid fuel requirements.

We don't need an infrastructure PM, we need a government interested in reviving productive industry and reducing the scale and profitability of the parasitic financial services industry. In our economy's more productive phase, that industry garnered 3-5% of total corporate profits in Australia. That is now around 30% yet it actually produces no real product.

I am very concerned about the thinking ability of many people who believe that they should seek political power in the mistaken belief that they are capable of making a valuable contribution to society.
Posted by Foyle, Tuesday, 4 November 2014 3:17:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Estelle
"where will all those difficult clients that no-one wants go?"

You and everyone who agrees with you will provide for them won't you?

Other people are not your slaves and chattels estelle. There is no reason for other people to be herded like cattle into compulsory indoctrination camps, just because you're too selfish and greedy to pay for the values that you think important.

Foyle
Everything you say has been disproved already here:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/

You need to actually understand modern economic theory, because you're only making a fool of yourself.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 4 November 2014 10:24:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After David Leyonhelm had this article published in The Australian Financial Review on 31/10 (http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/fund_parents_by_need_not_schools_UccRWRg81sGFwsbDVuWtiO), I had a letter correcting various of his misunderstandings published on 3/11 (http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/fair_school_funding_model_would_vEdEYYsaazaWJE6pvEXjiO). Yet he repeats the same mistakes today. Like most published on education, he seems to think that Australia = NSW.

The Gonski report has not “led to government schools with lots of poor kids receiving a bit more funding than other government schools” or “to non-government schools with lots of poor kids getting a bit more funding than other non-government schools”.

Government schools with lots of poor kids have been getting extra funding for more than 30 years, at least in Victoria. Non-government schools are not funded on the number of poor kids they have but on the socio-economic status of their neighbours, just like under the Howard government. In fact, under Gonski, those schools still funded on need are to be gradually forced off Labor’s fair educational resources index model and onto the Coalition’s unfair SES model. Anyone still misled by the Gonski propaganda can read my submission to the Senate inquiry into school funding, No. 42 at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/School_Funding/School_Funding/Submissions.

It is decades since enrolment was “restricted to those who live in certain suburbs”. Victorian children are free to attend any school that has room for them. As Victorian schools have been funded on a mostly per capita basis since 2005, the consequence for a school that loses enrolment is already a drop in income.

To fund schools that charge extra for access to “the best teachers’ is to perpetuate class divisions by segregating children according to the wealth of their parents, the every opposite of what we need to do to lift overall educational achievement.

The issue is not who owns the schools, but who has access to them. That is why we need a funding model that caps school fees and gives the poor the same chance of having the best teachers as the wealthy, something neither the Howard, the Gonski nor the Leyonhelm model can do.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 5 November 2014 6:56:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy