Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Waldorf Funding

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Good point. But, independently of who it was addressed to, I think that my argument is one worth making in response to a common complaint. He may not be worth
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 20, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Good point. But, independently of who it was addressed to, I think that my argument is one worth making in response to a common complaint. He may not be worth taking seriously but the complaint was.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
      >
      > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Pete K has responded:
      >
      > What Pete K (a psycho-nut-case) says about Waldorf education should be ignored. Whatever he says cannot be taken seriously, and by answering him, one is taking him seriously.
      > Frank
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      > > " We know Waldorf
      > > students don't acquire technological skills... no science that is of any use to
      > > them... little sense of history... no sense of current events or politics...
      > > many can't even spell"
      > >
      > > Do we know this? I think this is more likely the opinion of a member of a well known anti-Steiner hate group.
      > >
      > > He continues:
      > >
      > > "Do parents have the right to under-educate their
      > > children? Especially when the results of under-educating any population is that
      > > the population ultimately becomes a burden to the state?"
      > >
      > > 'Under-educate'? He assumes that the notion of how to educate and with what content is a settled judgment. It isn't. Kids are leaving the government mandated state education system in the UK with all the problems he describes.
      > >
      > > "...wouldn't the world be a better place if we had high standards for educating ALL
      > > children?"
      > >
      > > It would Pete - just *who's* standards, and how are they to be attained? Yours? The government's? You're just mouthing a thoughtless platitude, I'm afraid.
      > >
      > > T.
      > >
      > > Ted Wrinch
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Over on WC they are continuing their vendetta against publicly funded Waldorf schools, which isn't surprising as this is what got them into the arena twenty years ago in the first place. But their arguments are mostly as spurious now as they were then. I tried to start a debate on the subject when I was over there but the convention-bound lack of thought of the majority killed it.
      > > >
      > > > My argument is very simple: modern governments get most of their money through their citizens, by taxing them (they get a much smaller amount of money from other sources, such as businesses). For this reason, I've paid lots of taxes down the years, a big part of which has gone to fund my kids' education. I think that I should be free to direct the funds that I've paid to my government to be used in any kind of education that I wish for my kids, albeit one that should conform to basic standards of child welfare and pedagogy (the latter understood to not necessarily be synonymous with government's ideas on curriculum or teaching practises). In the context of the Charter schools in the US or the newer free schools in the UK, this principle implies that these schools should be funded by the government - a voucher system would appear to be a practical way of managing this - and be allowed to run themselves. On the principle of the UK NHS' 'free' health for all approach, education voucher levels should set to be high enough for all parents to be able to purchase the education that they want for their kids, regardless of how much tax they might have paid into the system. This means that higher earning parents will subsidise lower, which is no more than already happens in the equitable parts of the UK welfare system today.
      > > >
      > > > The argument is not about the distinction between public and private schools, as Pete K thanks, its about the funding of education. The politically motivated interference in the UK education system over that last few decades has not improved standards much but has de-motivated kids and staff alike (the problems in the US seem worse). Governments should not run schools, even in the public sector.
      > > >
      > > > I think the above argument is simple and irrefutable - I've yet to see anyone provide a counter-argument. The WC's (PLANS) twenty year long moan about Charter schools and the so called problem of the separation of church and state, OTOH, is an argument without content. Pete K's current moan on WC is the behaviour of someone without an argument; his support of statist education systems, against those of the free independent sector, is politically and culturally conservative and illiberal.
      > > >
      > > > T.
      > > >
      > > > Ted Wrinch
      > > >
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.