To take your analogy further, should we ban supermarkets? Children should also not go hungry. Why not make it so everyone eats the same thing, from a coop shop, with no fees. Of course not.

I'm down for that, beats getting price-gouged by those fuckers and we don't need shelves with 20 different versions of lemonade, 16 different self-raising flours, etc.

As long as private education exists, it will be a threat to public education and cannot be allowed.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Private education is only a threat to public education when it's not as good. There is a finite supply of funding allocated to education. Spending less on students that pay their own way by choice and more on students that need it seems a better use of resources.

With that same analogy, we would have to ban tutors, online courses, extracurricular activities etc too, I assume?

Or in my equivalent analogy, restaurants, farmers markets, independent food shops, butchers, greengrocers, cafes etc.

No, we don't need 20 choices for every product, but the reason supermarkets price gouge is a lack of competition. You're calling for less competition, completely at odds with your stated goal.

[–] rainynight65@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But are we "spending less" on students that "pay their own way"? Private schools are getting massive amounts of taxpayer money, and can use their funds to pay better salaries (therefore drawing teachers out of the public system), build better facilities, and so on. Meanwhile they are academically selective and therefore don't act as a catchment for capacity that the public system can't handle. Public schools however have to scrounge for the essentials and can't compete when it comes to salaries and facilities. That's just not right.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 8 months ago

Students going to private school are being subsidies by the government now. They pay less per student than the equivalent in public school, but it's still significant.

I'm saying that we shouldn't ban private school, just like we shouldn't ban hone schooling. We just shouldn't subsidise it.

[–] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Private education exists to be at odds with public education. As long as it is around, rich people will try to use it and when they are using it they will not have a reason for public education and dismiss it's importance. Not letting money be a factor in access to education at all seems the best outcome, and we have more than enough money for education if we actually wanted to use our national resources effectively instead of letting them be sold off for corporate profits.

I'm calling for no competition, access to education or food isn't a game where your goal is to get the most money out of people, it's about providing for citizens needs in life.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 8 months ago

Private education does not exist to be at odds with public education. It sexist for either profit, push particular ideology, or give an advantage. That’s not at odds with public education.

If there is no advantage, the profit motive goes as there is no advantage. Then all we are left with is religious schools. Most people using religious schools are not religious, but expect a good education where the public school is lacking. Improve the public schools fixed the problems and helps children. Banning private schools requires more funding for wealthier kids, so reduces funding for others, worsening education. Youre hoping that pressure from wealthy people would improve education funding. A wealthy vote and a poor vote are the same. So it is no more likely to be improved, while needing more funding to stay at parity of where we are now. You’re letting your ideology cloud the reality and outcomes.

[–] exocrinous@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago

With how much the government loves animal agriculture and my ARFID, I expect it would be nigh impossible for me to eat vegan if I relied on the government to determine the available selection of foods.