Schools - Govt & Non-govt

AG Wolfe · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 5

Arthur Jackson wrote:

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

Hi
i never studied there !! i went to the skool of hard nox in country NSW !!
cheers, get a grip, my netspression is okay, ain't it ?!

andrew.

Archived from group: aus>politics

Greig · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 4

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 02:52:35 GMT, razzamatazz@hotmail.com (Razz
Amatazz) wrote:

>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?

90% of humans follow some form of religion. I am an atheist, however
I have enough respect of others beliefs to consider them of value.
Obviously you do not.

>>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.

You have an absurd view of religion.

>So according to you:
>
>1/ My belief about you is "knowledge"
>
>2/ Our children are benefiting from this "knowledge"

No, your ridiculous analogy does not constitute religion.

>>>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

You have taken the above sentence out of context, by ignoring the
sentence which followed...

>>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.

Then we agree.

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

Perhaps you can back up this vague assertion with an example, or an
argument?

>>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.

All schools in Australia must adhere to basic rules and fundamental
requirements, and the basic curriculum is part of that requirement. I
do not object to that, nor do I object to schools being allowed to
teach religion if they wish to. I would be happy for all schools to
teach Indonesian and Mandarin as well as English. I am calling for
more freedom and choice in education, not the restrictions which the
State might place on it, to satisfy the requirements of "political
correctness", or other such restrictive conventions.

>>>(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'

You seem to equate the notion of "private" and "profit-making", as
being opposed to the notions of a "trust", "board of directors", and
"democracy". I am not sure where you get the idea that they are
opposed in principle, because they are not. There is no reason why a
privately owned company, which pursues a profit, is unable to
successfully provide an excellent educational service. Most parents
who send their kids to private schools are counting on it. But if you
do not believe that private schools provide a good education, then
fine - send your kids to a public school.

>(just that nobody knows about it).

It is just that YOU don't know about it.

>Thanks for that.

It is a pleasure to have informed you of new ideas.

regn.pickford · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

"Don H" wrote in message$aT.4856@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> ...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".
> ==========================

if you want to abuse christians because of their beliefs why don't you
change the subject line?

I am in favour of private schools myself.

They instill self respect and egalitarianism through compulsorary school
uniforms. Something
given up by the public school system as it would appear to me driving past
local school bus stops.