#19 - Andrew Atkin said:
2008-11-06 09:05 - (Reply)

If you gave everyone back their taxes for education, and instead only funded parents who need to be helped out for their children's education costs, via familiy support, and then let parents have *direct* and real control over how their children grow up educationally, then you would find that most primary and secondary education disolves into a collective homeshooling format. This is because most parents would just hold onto their money and work with family and friends to education their children. Because it's actually very easy to do, cheap, proven to be excellent for an academic objective (ref. homeshooling), and contrary to myth homeschooling comes with no obsevable socialisation problems (nor bullying of the level that drives some kids to suicide and the like). And then you wouldn't have to blow $500 million into our education monopooly which never has to truly answer to its shocking under-performance. Instead you will be selling schools on-mass as the demand largely collapses, and most of those schools get converted into residential developments and the like. I challenge you to explain to me why this should not be done. With sincere respect John Key, I know that you can't; at least not without being incredibly un-pc, in the real meaning of the word.

#20 - Andrew Atkin 2008-11-07 21:22 - (Reply)

Karen, I know my English isn't perfect - and hey, maybe you could blame government schools for that, because I went to one. I have never bothered to 'technically' improve it, I often make "lazy" errors, and I usually don't care too much so long as I can be understood. And sometimes I deliberately bend "perfect" english for effect, as I generally try to make my stuff read like I speak. Ok? Maybe I should get myself a secretary so I can look more intelligent. I agree that parents should have to meet some standards. I agree that kids should socialise with other children too - who doesn't? What I don't agree with is the government prescribing educational objectives (outside the *most basic* requirements), ahead of parents, and I do not agree with the government effectively forcing people to send their kids to institutional schools ahead of homeschooling by controlling the way they must spend their money (via tax). My critical point was that if we had a level economic playing field then demand for forced government schooling, as we know it, would probably collapse. But if that's what parents want then so it should. Competitive education philosophies should have to sell themselves to parents in the free market. 'Right to choose' is the real issue. And also, you can't forget that there is huge subjectivity with what we define as "quality" and "standards" in education. I know that the real issues in education go *way* deeper than what we tend to assume. Oh, and as far as "liabilites" go you don't have to worry. People with poor english often work very productively for their money doing critical work that must be done. You don't want to confuse payment-level with productivity. People with limited options due to their poor english skills tend to be very easy to exploit, making life a lot easier for everybody else "higher" up the ladder.