That which is instinctual and genetically inherent, to teach the next generation how to survive, succeed and eventually teach the next generation; ..... or to have the education that will give them the skills to survive and succeed in an industrialized environment in which both survival and success are subject to the unpredictable whims of an ever changing societal model.
What's your point? This has been a factor since the beginning of time, it doesn't change the fact that the "student" must be willing and able to learn those skills/info in order to operate in their society. If that individual desires to change societies, they onus is on them (as individuals) to take the initiative as opposed to pressure an entire society to bend.
By removing their children, thus segregating them to a minimal exposure to the complete spectrum of society leaving them ill-equipped in the skills to understand or even survive in real and actual society when they leave the confines of an unrealistic system, they are not only depriving the public system of their equally important input in the functioning of that system they are depriving their children of the very skills all societies need: an understanding of how all aspects of their particular society functions and how to survive in it.
The above suggestion is, in my opinion, entirely academic and philosophically-based. There is no "deprivation" of experiences or inputs, they are just different not unlike how that experience will differ dramatically based on individual perspectives and unique influences.
The more mundane aspect: in BC the Social Credit & then the Liberal parties when in power mandated that all private schools must receive for each pupil they enroll 40% of the amount designated per pupil out of the public education budget. Thus depriving the public system of 40% of its funding in order to pay for religiously based, wealth segregated, philosophically based, etc., exclusive private schools. Schools which may well have a curriculum based on principles in direct conflict with those of the society in which they and their pupils are located and substantially subsidised.
I cannot comment on BC's specific legislation, however, I can say this: All schools (incl home schooling) must comply with a provincially set curriculum. Those private/charter schools that operate outside the public system can augment or place a greater focus on whatever areas they please provided they satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
Further, these private schools do not "deprive" the public system of anything. They receive 40% of the funding that each family has paid through taxes where they could easily make the argument they should receive 100%.
In the end, the families that send their kid to private schools end up subsidizing the public system and not consuming that public service yet they kick in an extra 60% of their school tax for this.
Ah! The "trickle down" or "horse and sparrow" theories once again! "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.", a saying that came about because of the 'Panic of 1896' which was an acute economic depression in the US. It didn't work under Thatcher and Reagan and, to quote another homily at you, the proof is in the pudding as to Bush's trying it yet again, the results of which are plainly visible if you took your blinders off. Is Glenn Beck selling those too BTW?
And if you don't feed the horse, it dies and the sparrows get nothing.
the flip-side of your position (potentially) results in individuals and corp entities outsourcing their operations or physically moving away.
Haliburton is now based out of Dubai, the credit card companies have established many call centres in other nations and places like the Caymans are booming based on the money that is fleeing progressive tax regimes.
Theorize and postulate all you like, but in the real world, money talks and bullsh*t walks and the money, jobs and (nominal) taxes go to benefitting those communities/nations where it resides and not the home nation.
Exactly! So how about no public funding, taxpayers' money, of private schools?
Fine by me, but in the spirit of fairness, those folks that elect to pay out of pocket for a private school be exempted from the muni/prov portion of their school tax... I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you'll find a good reason to punish those families that want to take the private school route, right?
Ding! Incorrect! However prove me wrong - only accredited, politically non-affiliated sources being acceptable of course. Stats, numbers please - not anecdotal chalk board fantasies.
... You guessed wrong!.. What's the consolation prize that we have for our loser Ed?
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-621-m/11-621-m2005024-eng.pdf
An excerpt for you:
"The results were conclusive. The one-tenth of taxfilers who were in the highest earnings bracket provided more than one-half of the revenue from federal income tax in 2002. And, their share of the tax pie has been increasing. In 1990, this 10% of taxfilers accounted for 46.0% of total federal income tax; by 2002, this group accounted for 52.6%. This increase reflects faster income growth and a smaller reduction in effective tax rates for this group relative to others.
At the other end of the scale, the one-half of taxfilers with the lowest incomes saw their share of the tax pie decline during the same period. In 1990, this group accounted for 6.7% of total federal income tax paid; in 2002, this proportion had declined to 4.4%. In fact, this group paid less federal income tax in 2002 than in 1990, in spite of higher incomes."
And increasing the taxes on the wealthiest and decreasing them on the middle class and the poor? The latter two categories being proven to be the major consumers of basic goods with every rare and meagre tax cut; the wealthiest being the lowest per capita consumers of domestic goods at any level of tax rates.
Ding! Incorrect! However prove me wrong - only accredited, politically non-affiliated sources being acceptable of course. Stats, numbers please - not anecdotal chalk board fantasies.
The middle class and the poor of course. They always do. The rich are different. Didn't you know that? Tsk, tsk!
Yes, I am aware. In a society where all are equal and presumably treated as such, some are considered more equal than others.
Last edited: