Private schools have the right to government funding

[Gun Manufacturers]

No private schools should not have the right to government funding. If parents decide to send their kids to private schools they should be held liable for anything and everything. While private schools should be somewhat regulated by the government, a parent makes the choice to not use the available public education. That is their choice and I should not have to pay for that choice. They want tax payer money to educate their kid? Send the kid to public schools.

By that argument, should I, as a single man with no children, have to pay for some child's education? Shouldn't the parents of that child, by choosing to have that child, be responsible for the costs associated with their education?

[I didnt vote for Trump]

I'm 99% sure that a private school still has to teach a government-approved curriculum so yes, the government should be funding them. Perhaps not equally to public schools, but funding them nonetheless.

[Neutraligon]

No private schools should not have the right to government funding. If parents decide to send their kids to private schools they should be held liable for anything and everything. While private schools should be somewhat regulated by the government, a parent makes the choice to not use the available public education. That is their choice and I should not have to pay for that choice. They want tax payer money to educate their kid? Send the kid to public schools.

By that argument, should I, as a single man with no children, have to pay for some child's education? Shouldn't the parents of that child, by choosing to have that child, be responsible for the costs associated with their education?

Society in general benefits from children having education, and as such society ensures that those children have that education. Parents have the option to use the public schools and have decided against that and should not get to use that public money because they decided to send their kids to private school.

[Neutraligon]

I'm 99% sure that a private school still has to teach a government-approved curriculum so yes, the government should be funding them. Perhaps not equally to public schools, but funding them nonetheless.

Why does regulation mean that they should be funded by the public? Should a drug company which is highly regulated in the US get public money?

[Gun Manufacturers]

By that argument, should I, as a single man with no children, have to pay for some child's education? Shouldn't the parents of that child, by choosing to have that child, be responsible for the costs associated with their education?

Society in general benefits from children having education, and as such society ensures that those children have that education. Parents have the option to use the public schools and have decided against that and should not get to use that public money because they decided to send their kids to private school.

What benefit to society does new football jerseys give us? What about school subsidized trips to amusement parks? How about that new expresso machine in the teachers lounge?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Society in general benefits from children having education, and as such society ensures that those children have that education. Parents have the option to use the public schools and have decided against that and should not get to use that public money because they decided to send their kids to private school.

What benefit to society does new football jerseys give us? What about school subsidized trips to amusement parks? How about that new expresso machine in the teachers lounge?

https://youtu.be/VjLrFLYGdPM?t=1m13s

[United States of Natan]

So say the government provides a taxpayer-funded public transportation service. I decide I want to use a private transportation service. Should the taxpayers have to subsidize the higher quality, private service I use, that they cannot afford, but I can, when the money could be instead going towards a public transportation service that I, and everyone else, have the option to utilize at any time for free or at very low cost, especially when that money is really needed for major, major improvements to the public service? And private service cannot support itself without taxpayer money, should it even still be in business? Would it not defeat the purpose of a better, private service paid for directly with my own money, when I could instead be using the also-taxpayer funded public service for less money, and which would instead have more money for better improvements that isn't being used to subsidize a private service?

My point is, taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for private services they don't have the opportunity to use.

[AiliailiA]

Society in general benefits from children having education, and as such society ensures that those children have that education. Parents have the option to use the public schools and have decided against that and should not get to use that public money because they decided to send their kids to private school.

What benefit to society does new football jerseys give us? What about school subsidized trips to amusement parks? How about that new expresso machine in the teachers lounge?

1. Public schools provide sports clothing to students?? You must be American ... spending educational money on quasi-professional sports teams is indeed bloody stupid, very few of the schools which do that make a profit from it, but it's not an argument against public schooling itself.

2. Amusements parks, definitely. Instead of just punishments to keep the kids well behaved, outings like that are a reward which can be withheld for bad behavior, and particularly for truancy.

3. Seriously how can you ask that? Teachers without their coffee are a nightmare.

[Randsbeik]

If you want to create another bubble, sure.

[United States of Natan]

I'm 99% sure that a private school still has to teach a government-approved curriculum so yes, the government should be funding them. Perhaps not equally to public schools, but funding them nonetheless.

Why does regulation mean that they should be funded by the public? Should a drug company which is highly regulated in the US get public money?

Should a highly regulated investment banking company be allowed to receive public tax money? Should workplaces, which are subject to regulations on how to treat employees, like OSHA, be allowed to receive public money for that?

[I didnt vote for Trump]

I'm 99% sure that a private school still has to teach a government-approved curriculum so yes, the government should be funding them. Perhaps not equally to public schools, but funding them nonetheless.

Why does regulation mean that they should be funded by the public? Should a drug company which is highly regulated in the US get public money?

Because the private school is performing a civic service on behalf of the government. What have drug companies got to do with that?

[Demetland]

Because the private school is performing a civic service on behalf of the government.

That's just where you're wrong.

[I didnt vote for Trump]

Because the private school is performing a civic service on behalf of the government.

That's just where you're wrong.

LOL

Is education not a civic service, are private schools not educating students or is it not the responsibility of the government to educate the population?

Which assertion are you going to double down on?

[Saiwania]

The economics of private schools simply don't work unless public schools exist as competition. If education in the US were 100% private sector, you might see a similar situation to how healthcare currently is in the US. The cost of sending your kid to school would gradually become sky high and most simply wouldn't get a formal education of any sort as a result of it being too expensive, and with no regulations; many private schools would be diploma mills or outright scams which don't teach anything useful. The US would flat out become an undeveloped country, much more so than even now.

[United States of Natan]

That's just where you're wrong.

LOL

Is education not a civic service, are private schools not educating students or is it not the responsibility of the government to educate the population?

Which assertion are you going to double down on?

education may be a civic service, but that doesn't mean the government has to pay for a private school. Health Care is a civic service, but that doesn't mean the government has to pay for private health care.

[Demetland]

That's just where you're wrong.

LOL

Is education not a civic service, are private schools not educating students or is it not the responsibility of the government to educate the population?

Which assertion are you going to double down on?

None of those, actually.

Education may or may not be a civic service; whether it is or not is entirely irrelevant to the validity of your assertion. Providing mass education is generally considered to be something governments ought to do, I suppose, but they have a state-run system to do this. It is state schools which perform on behalf of the government.

The point is that independent schools aren't doing anything on behalf of the government; that's precisely why they are independent.

They don't rely primarily on government funding, and consequently they can do things state schools cannot: they can employ teaching staff who don't have official teaching qualifications; they don't have to follow the national curriculum; they can arrange their admissions however they like.

[Randsbeik]

The economics of private schools simply don't work unless public schools exist as competition. If education in the US were 100% private sector, you might see a similar situation to how healthcare currently is in the US. The cost of sending your kid to school would gradually become sky high and most simply wouldn't get a formal education of any sort and with no regulations, many private schools would be diploma mills or outright scams which don't teach anything useful, and the US would flat out become an undeveloped country, much more so than even now.

U.S healthcare is far from private sector; most of what drives costs up comes from gov't interference. Also, some of the best schools in the world are private; so the statement of them becoming worthless isn't quite accurate.

[The Conez Imperium]

From my perspective, I'm trying to debate this topic on a more theoretical/philosophical level than a practical level.

In reality, private schooling will continue to be government funded in the foreseeable future because of politics and self-interest. A man called Mark Latham, former leader of Labor party came up with a "private school rich list" because some private schools were receiving too much funding. He didn't survive that long (and because of other factors).

You made the argument that there is an ecosystem of sorts that is based around government funding (making me wonder how these are still private schools). I am asking why I should care about this system. I am asking why this ecosystem should deserve the protections you are giving it. I am asking if public schools are unable to take on the burden should this ecosystem fail. Why should I as a tax payer have to pay for something I may not be able to access due to private schools not accepting my kid?

Well that leads into another mileu of argument which is quite fascinating; how private schools co-exist in public schools in educating the populace. Abolishing private schooling because of rights of tax payers is a separate to, are private schools necessary for education to be provided.

In regards to the original argument, to use the nice police example. One man wishing to have the government fund his private police force is non-realistic. In Australia 2016, around 1.3 million children are enrolled in Catholic and independent education (private). 1 million families wishing for the government to fund their schools is a different responsibility for the government to decide on. That is the problem I am forseeing.

[Costa Fierro]

Yeah, if we allow a for-profit industry to cherry pick the least sick citizens, the pool remaining to be served by the government is sicker and costs more per capita to serve.

Much the same with allowing for-profit schools to cherry pick the most talented students with the most supportive home environments. The public schools then have a student body which is harder to educate and costs more per capita to educate.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Wouldn't it be less per capita to educate seeing as the costs of the education funding are spread out over billions in tax revenues rather than directly on parents? My argument was that private schools function more like businesses rather than gratuitous services in that someone pays an organisation to provide a service for their children.

[The Conez Imperium]

LOL

Is education not a civic service, are private schools not educating students or is it not the responsibility of the government to educate the population?

Which assertion are you going to double down on?

None of those, actually.

Education may or may not be a civic service; whether it is or not is entirely irrelevant to the validity of your assertion. Providing mass education is generally considered to be something governments ought to do, I suppose, but they have a state-run system to do this. It is state schools which perform on behalf of the government.

The point is that independent schools aren't doing anything on behalf of the government; that's precisely why they are independent.

They don't rely primarily on government funding, and consequently they can do things state schools cannot: they can employ teaching staff who don't have official teaching qualifications; they don't have to follow the national curriculum; they can arrange their admissions however they like.

These schools are independent because they can charge whatever they want to their students. Government schools can't demand 30k from their students unlike some private schools. For all intents and purposes, independent schools are still subject to the same teaching regulations as set by the department of education and its relevant authorities. The primary difference is the financing and the leadership of the schools.

I believe that NSW mandateschildren ins schools learn 100 hours of foreign languages. Both public and private schools comply in this. So it really is a civil service (according to the original argument) considering that private schools like public schools interpret the curriculum to their understanding.

[United States of Natan]

You made the argument that there is an ecosystem of sorts that is based around government funding (making me wonder how these are still private schools). I am asking why I should care about this system. I am asking why this ecosystem should deserve the protections you are giving it. I am asking if public schools are unable to take on the burden should this ecosystem fail. Why should I as a tax payer have to pay for something I may not be able to access due to private schools not accepting my kid?

Well that leads into another mileu of argument which is quite fascinating; how private schools co-exist in public schools in educating the populace. Abolishing private schooling because of rights of tax payers is a separate to, are private schools necessary for education to be provided.

In regards to the original argument, to use the nice police example. One man wishing to have the government fund his private police force is non-realistic. In Australia 2016, around 1.3 million children are enrolled in Catholic and independent education (private). 1 million families wishing for the government to fund their schools is a different responsibility for the government to decide on. That is the problem I am forseeing.

The police force thing is just an example that he gave. And the government shouldn't have to pay for parents who opt out of public schooling. They can use public schooling at any point that they choose, if they care about their child being educated with their tax dollars.

[Frank Zipper]

Is I didn't vote for Trump your puppet Conez Imperium?

EDIT okay I can see it isn't now.

[Valgora]

An argument I often see on the internet is that private schools don't deserve a drop of money from the government. I sympathise with their statement however I find it inherently unfair that they ignore the right of the taxpayers.

Students in private/independent schools deserve government funding simply because they're parents pay taxes. We say that every child is entitled to an education. Then why aren't taxpayers entitled to their tax dollars being spent on their child's education - whether private or public. In saying, there of course needs to be a difference in contribution between private and public school funding. Most likely, students who go to private schools do not need as much funding as those who attend government schools.

They're called private schools for a reason.
If I paid taxes (I don't have a job anymore because I'm a full-time college student), I don't want my fucking taxes to go to a private school. I would want my taxes to go to public schools.
Plus, private schools are either: for the wealthy or they are religious schools (arguably, sometimes both).

[I didnt vote for Trump]

Is I didn't vote for Trump your puppet Conez Imperium?

Nope, he's probably just another Australian who grew up with a working education system.

[The Conez Imperium]

An argument I often see on the internet is that private schools don't deserve a drop of money from the government. I sympathise with their statement however I find it inherently unfair that they ignore the right of the taxpayers.

Students in private/independent schools deserve government funding simply because they're parents pay taxes. We say that every child is entitled to an education. Then why aren't taxpayers entitled to their tax dollars being spent on their child's education - whether private or public. In saying, there of course needs to be a difference in contribution between private and public school funding. Most likely, students who go to private schools do not need as much funding as those who attend government schools.

They're called private schools for a reason.
If I paid taxes (I don't have a job anymore because I'm a full-time college student), I don't want my fucking taxes to go to a private school. I would want my taxes to go to public schools.
Plus, private schools are either: for the wealthy or they are religious schools (arguably, sometimes both).

On principle that would be right. You're money "theoretically" will not be spent on private schools. It is the tax money of private schooled children, that will go towards funding private schools.