Schools - Govt & Non-govt

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

Why do non-government schools exist? Traditionally mostly religious in
nature, they were founded to ensure the propagation of the faith, mainly by
Catholics; something deemed inadequate if catered for by (Protestant)
"Sunday schools".
Cynics might claim religious schools are not educational, but
indoctrination centres, formed by the Eternal Life Insurance industry, to
mentally cripple children by (a) teaching beliefs of dubious merit as being
absolutely true, and (b) ensuring rival beliefs are not taught, or, as being
inferior and thus false. So creating "tunnel vision" in children. Error is
perpetuated unchallenged from one generation to the next, and children
deprived of choice of religion by well-meaning, but misguided, parents.
"State Aid" to non-government schools was a contentious issue in
Australia, and is still regarded by many as a violation of the federal
Constitution. This is countered by claiming aid is impartially distributed.
However, if Catholic (or whatever) schools comprise the bulk of aided
schools, then it amounts to de facto, if not de jure, "establishment" of the
RC Church as the official church of Australia. The day may come when Moslem
schools are the majority; what then?
But within the denominational or "independent" school system there are
social divisions. Wealthy parents send their children to the "best" schools,
which tends to consolidate the schools' status.
Then there's the matter of democratic control. Do parents of children
in, eg. Catholic schools, have any ownership of school property, or any say
in what is taught or how it is taught? Or, does the Church, as a
totalitarian institution, have first and final say in all this?
A Conservative government naturally favours anything which is not of a
public nature, and which has potential to divide the populace into feuding
(religious, social) factions.
==============================

Archived from group: aus>politics

Stephen X. Carter · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 25

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:16:18 GMT, "Don H"
wrote:

> Why do non-government schools exist?

Equally what's the "justification" (sic) for the Federal
Govt giving more per capita to private schools than it gives
to state schools?

--
steve@stephencarterNOSPAM.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

....and you just confirmed my assertion: religion brooks no opposition, nor
is any contrary view taught; indoctrination doesn't have to be heavy-handed
to be effective - but is always there.
As to Evolution, the Church recognised the inevitability of this aspect of
science and adapted accordingly, unlike the honest Fundamentalists. But
this leaves various queries - why didn't God create all species in one go?
(as claimed in Genesis), rather than leave it to a long fumbling process.
The human body, for example, has about 70 vestigial parts. Then, of course,
who created God?, or what was he doing before he made the universe and us?
No doubt such queries aren't allowed at your school, or are skipped over, as
being "a great mystery".
==========================
"AG Wolfe" wrote in message@optusnet.com.au...
>
>
> Don H wrote:
>
> > Why do non-government schools exist? Traditionally mostly religious
in
> > nature, they were founded to ensure the propagation of the faith, mainly
by
> > Catholics; something deemed inadequate if catered for by (Protestant)
> > "Sunday schools".
>
>
>
> Hi
> you just answered your own Q. protestants are inadequate, an
> 'artificial' religion, simply started so Henry VIII could root around !
>
>
> > Cynics might claim religious schools are not educational, but
> > indoctrination centres,
>
>
>
> i work at Catholic school, and the education is excellent imo. there is
> no indoctrination, everything is taught as per normal curriculum, but
> with a religious POV or insight. The religion is supplemental to the
> rest of the course work. We do, eg teach evolution and genetics !
>
> cheers, andrew wolfe.
>

AG Wolfe · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 5

Don H wrote:

> Why do non-government schools exist? Traditionally mostly religious in
> nature, they were founded to ensure the propagation of the faith, mainly by
> Catholics; something deemed inadequate if catered for by (Protestant)
> "Sunday schools".

Hi
you just answered your own Q. protestants are inadequate, an
'artificial' religion, simply started so Henry VIII could root around !

> Cynics might claim religious schools are not educational, but
> indoctrination centres,

i work at Catholic school, and the education is excellent imo. there is
no indoctrination, everything is taught as per normal curriculum, but
with a religious POV or insight. The religion is supplemental to the
rest of the course work. We do, eg teach evolution and genetics !

cheers, andrew wolfe.

Arthur Jackson · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

"AG Wolfe" wrote in message@optusnet.com.au...

> Hi
> you just answered your own Q. protestants are inadequate, an
> 'artificial' religion, simply started so Henry VIII could root around !

You've never heard of Martin Luther, obviously. You have just proved the
OP's point about how such schools teach religion (and history) inaccurately
to reflect their own prejudices!

> i work at Catholic school, and the education is excellent imo.

This "excellent" education does not appear to include mastery of the basics
of written expression, like punctuation and sentence construction.

That's history, religious studies and English taken care of. Any other
areas in which you'd care to shoot yourself in the foot?

Greig · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 4

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 01:42:49 GMT, steve@[127.0.0.1] (Stephen X.
Carter) wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:16:18 GMT, "Don H"
> wrote:
>
>> Why do non-government schools exist?
>
>Equally what's the "justification" (sic) for the Federal
>Govt giving more per capita to private schools than it gives
>to state schools?

It is to balance the fact that the state governments give very little
to private schools. Overall, including both federal and state
funding, private schools still receive less funding than public
schools.

nullabore · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 12

"Stephen X. Carter" wrote in message@localhost...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:16:18 GMT, "Don H"
> wrote:
>
> > Why do non-government schools exist?
>
> Equally what's the "justification" (sic) for the Federal
> Govt giving more per capita to private schools than it gives
> to state schools?
>
> --
> steve@stephencarterNOSPAM.net
> Nothing is Beatle Proof!!

That is simply NOT true, you are forgetting (conveniently) that all GST
monies (some of which were previously handed out to State and non Government
schools) now goes directly to the States, that's right all GST monies goes
to the States. In addition of course there is a reasonable argument that
during the Laborious years non government schools were neglected. Should
they be given Government funding? yes in my opinion for they now educate
almost 1million Australian children a year and they have capital outlays
that would otherwise fully fall upon the Government of the day. Does
indoctrination occur as far as these non Government schools are concerned?
maybe it does to some degree but one could also argue that the opposite
indoctrination occurs in State schools as well so I guess it is a balance of
choice.

Regards

Nullabore

Phred · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 19

In article ,
"Don H" wrote:
> Why do non-government schools exist? Traditionally mostly religious in

1. Once upon a time it was to service people who otherwise could not
get an education. (But I'm thinking boarding schools here.)

2. Now it seems to be to service people who just want an education.

>nature, they were founded to ensure the propagation of the faith, mainly by
>Catholics; something deemed inadequate if catered for by (Protestant)
>"Sunday schools".
> Cynics might claim religious schools are not educational, but
>indoctrination centres, formed by the Eternal Life Insurance industry, to
>mentally cripple children by (a) teaching beliefs of dubious merit as being
>absolutely true, and (b) ensuring rival beliefs are not taught, or, as being
>inferior and thus false. So creating "tunnel vision" in children. Error is
>perpetuated unchallenged from one generation to the next, and children
>deprived of choice of religion by well-meaning, but misguided, parents.

Yeah. And I've noticed they do the same with frigging politics.

> "State Aid" to non-government schools was a contentious issue in
>Australia, and is still regarded by many as a violation of the federal
>Constitution. This is countered by claiming aid is impartially distributed.
>However, if Catholic (or whatever) schools comprise the bulk of aided
>schools, then it amounts to de facto, if not de jure, "establishment" of the
>RC Church as the official church of Australia. The day may come when Moslem
>schools are the majority; what then?
> But within the denominational or "independent" school system there are
>social divisions. Wealthy parents send their children to the "best" schools,
>which tends to consolidate the schools' status.
> Then there's the matter of democratic control. Do parents of children
>in, eg. Catholic schools, have any ownership of school property, or any say
>in what is taught or how it is taught? Or, does the Church, as a
>totalitarian institution, have first and final say in all this?
> A Conservative government naturally favours anything which is not of a
>public nature, and which has potential to divide the populace into feuding
>(religious, social) factions.
>==============================

Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID

Petzl · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:27:59 +1000, "nullabore"
wrote:

>
>"Stephen X. Carter" wrote in message
>@localhost...
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:16:18 GMT, "Don H"
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Why do non-government schools exist?
>>
>> Equally what's the "justification" (sic) for the Federal
>> Govt giving more per capita to private schools than it gives
>> to state schools?
>>
>> --
>> steve@stephencarterNOSPAM.net
>> Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
>
>That is simply NOT true, you are forgetting (conveniently) that all GST
>monies (some of which were previously handed out to State and non Government
>schools) now goes directly to the States, that's right all GST monies goes
>to the States. In addition of course there is a reasonable argument that
>during the Laborious years non government schools were neglected. Should
>they be given Government funding? yes in my opinion for they now educate
>almost 1million Australian children a year and they have capital outlays
>that would otherwise fully fall upon the Government of the day. Does
>indoctrination occur as far as these non Government schools are concerned?
>maybe it does to some degree but one could also argue that the opposite
>indoctrination occurs in State schools as well so I guess it is a balance of
>choice.
>
>Regards
>
>Nullabore
>
>

The reality is all schools should be private
The government allocate its cost of sending a child to school be given
to the parent to do (the cheque payable only to endorsed schools)

Petzl
--
"The price of living in a democracy is that the morons can vote, say
anything they want, and procreate at will" - Dr John Becker

flange · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

"Stephen X. Carter" wrote in message@localhost...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:16:18 GMT, "Don H"
> wrote:
>
> > Why do non-government schools exist?
>
> Equally what's the "justification" (sic) for the Federal
> Govt giving more per capita to private schools than it gives
> to state schools?

They don't.

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

Let's get back to basics:
(1) The most fundamental concept of education is the right of a child to
open and comprehensive access to knowledge, unfettered by the prejudices of
state, church, or even parents.
Indoctrination by the Nazis led to the stipulation in the UN Declaration of
Human Rights that "parents have the prior right to decide on the education
of their children". However, if parents themselves are brainwashed by their
own upbringing, then this is equally a hindrance to a child's education.
(2) All schools should be democratically owned and controlled, whether this
is indirectly via the State, or more directly, doesn't matter all that
much - certainly not by an authoritarian church of whatever denomination or
belief.
(3) If public money is to be spent, then its priority should be on public
schools, as is the case with all tax moneys. Facilities are available in
other areas of govt expenditure; whether citizens avail themselves of such
facilities is up to them in each case.
(4) Where public money is allocated to private purposes, then a govt has a
responsibility to determine the conditions under which it is spent - and
this can include: (a) justification for the need for such outlay; (b)
monitoring that it is spent only on prescribed purposes; (eg) on education,
not indoctrination ("the right of a child"), and (c) that any assets created
are under some form of democratic ownership and control.
PS: "It's not that democracy is the perfect political system, but just that
the alternatives are so much worse." - Winston Churchill (words to that
effect).
==========================
"Petzl" wrote in message@4ax.com...
...................
> The reality is all schools should be private
> The government allocate its cost of sending a child to school be given
> to the parent to do (the cheque payable only to endorsed schools)
>
>
> Petzl
> --
> "The price of living in a democracy is that the morons can vote, say
> anything they want, and procreate at will" - Dr John Becker

Greig · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 4

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:45:00 GMT, "Don H"
wrote:

>Let's get back to basics:
>(1) The most fundamental concept of education is the right of a child to
>open and comprehensive access to knowledge, unfettered by the prejudices of
>state, church, or even parents.

Theology and religious training are considered by most to be
"knowledge". Regardless of your personal belief system, we live in a
community with many beliefs, and all of those beliefs deserve to be
aired. And children will benefit from receiving that knowledge.

>Indoctrination by the Nazis led to the stipulation in the UN Declaration of
>Human Rights that "parents have the prior right to decide on the education
>of their children". However, if parents themselves are brainwashed by their
>own upbringing, then this is equally a hindrance to a child's education.

In non-communist societies, the parents of children have the sole
responsibility to care for their child. Both physically and mentally.
It is not up to the state, nor any external body, to be involved
child-rearing unless it becomes problematic under human rights laws.

I do not want the State or external bodies to determine the content of
my child's education. To allow such a system, is to lay the community
open to manipulation by political power mongers.

>(2) All schools should be democratically owned and controlled, whether this
>is indirectly via the State, or more directly, doesn't matter all that
>much - certainly not by an authoritarian church of whatever denomination or
>belief.

I think "democratically owned" in this context is an oxymoron.
Independent and church schools are run as a trust, and controlled by a
board of directors. Is that sufficiently democratic for you? Perhaps
you can be more specific about a realistic scenario for independent
school ownership.

>(3) If public money is to be spent, then its priority should be on public
>schools, as is the case with all tax moneys.

Nonsense. If public money is to be spent on education, then it's
priority should be on the individual child. Each child in the
community should receive an identical allocation of public funds, or
conversely all schools should receive public money on the basis of
school population. Some schools should be free to ask parents to pay
fees in addition to the public money allocation in order to supply
additional facilities and improve quality, some schools should be
offered with no additional facilities for parents who cannot afford
fees. All schools should be free to present a unique style and
content to the education (including religion), and allow parents the
freedom to choose the education they want for their children.

At present about 2.2 million children, or 69 per cent, attend State
schools and receive 78 per cent of taxpayer funds spent on education.
About one million children, or 31 per cent, attend Catholic and
independent schools, and they receive the remaining 22 per cent of
taxpayer funds. So at present an individual private school student
receives about 40% less public funding than a public school student.

>Facilities are available in
>other areas of govt expenditure; whether citizens avail themselves of such
>facilities is up to them in each case.
>(4) Where public money is allocated to private purposes, then a govt has a
>responsibility to determine the conditions under which it is spent - and
>this can include: (a) justification for the need for such outlay; (b)
>monitoring that it is spent only on prescribed purposes; (eg) on education,
>not indoctrination ("the right of a child"), and (c) that any assets created
>are under some form of democratic ownership and control.

You are calling for State control of the private school system. I
think that you have missed the entire point of having a private school
system in the first place. By calling for State control of private
schools, you are removing the freedom of these schools to present a
unique service to the community. In the end, you are removing the
rights of parents to choose the nature of their child's education.

But you do not care for that, do you Don? You seem to be under the
impression that parents are "brainwashed" by the private system and
therefore in an endless circle of self-deception over educational
priorities. Yet you feel empowered to observe this objectively? I
wonder if you have considered how outrageously arrogant your position
is? And (relative to that) I think you should consider how absurd
your assumption is: that the State is somehow the fairest arbiter of
educational standards.

Greig · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 4

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:14:59 +1000, "flange" wrote:

>
>"Stephen X. Carter" wrote in message
>@localhost...
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:16:18 GMT, "Don H"
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Why do non-government schools exist?
>>
>> Equally what's the "justification" (sic) for the Federal
>> Govt giving more per capita to private schools than it gives
>> to state schools?
>
>They don't.

Actually, the federal govt does provide more money to private schools
than public schools. However this does not take into account state
funding. Overall, including both federal and state funding, private
schools receive about 40% less than funding public schools.

Razz Amatazz · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:11:53 GMT, Greig wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:45:00 GMT, "Don H"
>wrote:
>
>>Let's get back to basics:
>>(1) The most fundamental concept of education is the right of a child to
>>open and comprehensive access to knowledge, unfettered by the prejudices of
>>state, church, or even parents.
>
>Theology and religious training are considered by most to be
>"knowledge".

Who are "most"?

Do you mean most people sitting in front of your computer?

>Regardless of your personal belief system, we live in a
>community with many beliefs, and all of those beliefs deserve to be
>aired. And children will benefit from receiving that knowledge.

So I have a religious belief that you have escaped from hell and you
are spreading evil on earth and the only way to stop you is to poke
out your eyes.

There are a community of us who share this believe and we teach this
to our children in our school as the primary purpose and goal of life.

So according to you:

1/ My belief about you is "knowledge"

2/ Our children are benefiting from this "knowledge"

>
>>Indoctrination by the Nazis led to the stipulation in the UN Declaration of
>>Human Rights that "parents have the prior right to decide on the education
>>of their children". However, if parents themselves are brainwashed by their
>>own upbringing, then this is equally a hindrance to a child's education.
>
>In non-communist societies, the parents of children have the sole
>responsibility to care for their child. Both physically and mentally.

This is not true. Children are taken away from their parents all the
time because the state deems that the parents are not fit to care for
the children.. If you had children they would be taken away from you
because you are non compus mentis

>It is not up to the state, nor any external body, to be involved
>child-rearing unless it becomes problematic under human rights laws.

Well of course if you call any law where the state intervenes in the
rearing of a child to be a 'human rights laws' then this is true.

Your little problem is that 'human rights laws' usually define
something other than laws relating to child welfare in particular.

>
>I do not want the State or external bodies to determine the content of
>my child's education. To allow such a system, is to lay the community
>open to manipulation by political power mongers.

So umm ,,,, you are making the claim that children can be raised in
Australia between the ages of 5 and 15 (in most states) and not have
to learn English? Because of course, having to learn English is an
example of an external body determining the content of a child's
education.

>
>>(2) All schools should be democratically owned and controlled, whether this
>>is indirectly via the State, or more directly, doesn't matter all that
>>much - certainly not by an authoritarian church of whatever denomination or
>>belief.
>
>I think "democratically owned" in this context is an oxymoron.
>Independent and church schools are run as a trust, and controlled by a
>board of directors. Is that sufficiently democratic for you? Perhaps
>you can be more specific about a realistic scenario for independent
>school ownership.
>

So when an independent school is owned by an individual or a company
and operated to make a profit, according to you this is not really
true and what is really happening is that behind the profit making
company is actually a 'trust' controlled be a 'board of directors'
that operates 'democratically' (just that nobody knows about it).

Thanks for that.

The Enlightenment · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 8

"AG Wolfe" wrote in message@optusnet.com.au...
>
>
> Don H wrote:
>
> > Why do non-government schools exist? Traditionally mostly
religious in
> > nature, they were founded to ensure the propagation of the faith,
mainly by
> > Catholics; something deemed inadequate if catered for by
(Protestant)
> > "Sunday schools".
>
>
>
> Hi
> you just answered your own Q. protestants are inadequate, an
> 'artificial' religion, simply started so Henry VIII could root
around !

You really shouldn't be proud at all.

1 There were many schisms from the power structure, corruption and
brutality of Rome that were put down with murder and the most brutal
torture.

A schism in the form of Protestantism succeeded eventually in the form
of Lutheranism in Nth Europe and Calvinism in Switzerland and Holland.
The Church of England was England's way of Breaking away from Rome.
These countries succeded economically and were in advance of Catholic
areas by typically 100 years once freed of the dead hand.

2 Where did Jesus say that a Church needs to be heirachialy
centralized in Rome?

3 Henry the VIII needed an Heir/Successor to keep the Kingdom stable.
This was the driving force for Henry's wives.

If he wanted to root around there was no problem in having multiple
mistresses like every other Catholic Monarch or several of the Popes
of the time.

The Catholic church exercised its power by controlling fertility and
access to heaven and other such fantasies.

Personaly I think Christianity has done little if nothing for Eruope.
Some of It's greatest achievements were under heathenism.

>
> > Cynics might claim religious schools are not educational, but
> > indoctrination centres,
>
>
>
> i work at Catholic school, and the education is excellent imo. there
is
> no indoctrination, everything is taught as per normal curriculum,
but
> with a religious POV or insight. The religion is supplemental to the
> rest of the course work.

My God. Being Catholic involves accpeting certain dogmas. The
incalcation or acceptence of these doctrines is what makes you and
your charges 'Catholic'.

We do, eg teach evolution and genetics !
>
> cheers, andrew wolfe.
>