So you’re telling me that sending your kids to private school is actually a waste of money because they wouldn’t get the help they need, and the less tools for them to succeed.
Note taken.
PS: I’m thinking that spending $20,000+ a year on private education is kind of a scam because you expect more for that kind of money, especially when private schools gets public funding.
I’m certain I didn’t. And if I did make such a suggestion, it should be easy for you to quote it.
Again, I said that you’re more than welcome to pay for a private service, but you shouldn’t expect it to be subsidized.
I’m not sure how you get “lose all access to the basic-level public service” from that.
OK I officially give up.
Point and match to MiG.
Not really. He just doesn’t seem to be able to understand what I’m saying. Anyway, to each their own.
Sure I do. That’s the great thing about having this discussion in writing.
You said this:
Which I didn’t suggest at all. I said the opposite – you’re more than welcome to pay for private services, but you shouldn’t expect them to be subsidized.
You keep insisting I said something I didn’t, and now you’re turning it around with the “he doesn’t understand” line. Classy.
Again, quote where I suggested that when you pay extra for a private service, you should “lose all access to the basic-level public service.”
This isn’t a case of a misunderstanding, it’s a case of you realizing that I didn’t actually say this, and that you’re wrong. Now you’ll try and weasel out of it by suggesting I don’t understand, or that “to each their own.”
Honestly, if I made such a mistake, I’d admit I was wrong. Especially when anyone can go back and read this topic and see the error. That’s an uncomfortable truth.
Here’s a template you can copy and still save some face: “Hey MiG, sorry, I misread your reply. I thought you were suggesting that I should lose basic-level public services if I paid for private services. My mistake. You’re right. My point still stands, however. I believe my private school should be subsidized by the taxpayers.”
That’s how I would react to making a mistake.
But hey, to each their own.
oh great have to have at least 20 characters just to say good one 
Wow ok. Someone is getting a little excited… Let me try to explain AGAIN, looking at the specific example of a security service.
If my neighbourhood chooses to employ a private security service, that does not prevent me from calling 911 or using other police services that my taxes pay for. There is a basic level of service that is available to everyone, irrespective of whether they buy extra security. By hiring extra security, I am not opting out of anything. Its not really a choice between private and public – I am choosing to buy extra service.
In the case of education, our taxes are used to provide a basic level of education for all children. If I choose to send my kid to a private school, my child should not lose this basic level of state-provided service. That would be an undeserved penalty. So the funding is redirected to the private school, where it pays for a portion of the tuition. Its not really a choice between private and public – I am choosing to buy extra service.
As I mentioned above, private school kids are actually far less of a burden on the state than public school kids. So private school parents are actually subsidizing the public system.
Whatever you think, this is the status quo in BC. If you think its wrong, the onus is on you to prove so and do something about it. Plenty of intelligent people obviously think that the system works reasonably well, otherwise it would have been changed already. That’s the nature of democracy. Vote for your local NDP candidate if you want to penalize the parents at private schools.
If you disagree with me, that’s OK. But let’s have a bit of less of the “I deserve an apology” histrionics.
https://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/k12funding/funding/01-02/welcome.htm
in the last 14 years the education funding for BC went from $3.66 billion to about $4.72 billion while at the same time enrollment in schools dropped for most of those years. where has funding decreased? oh and those lawyers your so fond of mentioning I do recall that Glen Clark had access to them too, all governments in power have used government lawyers whether for themselves or their lackies. should they be allowed to use them well considering no party has changed the rules I guess they can use them. oh and what a waste of taxpayers dollars on the BC Railnon-scandal, who do we have to blame for the government to defend themselves on that one eh 
as to the private public funding discussion, if the government said today we will stop giving money to private schools period, ppl think that money will go into the public education system, guess what it will not it will just go back to general revenue, and also since the government funds a portion of private schools they have the right to make sure those schools follow the public curriculum, despite if it goes against their religous views
You said this:
Which isn’t true. I didn’t suggest that at all. Especially with respect to your example of a security service. You’re more than welcome to pay for a private security firm, but you shouldn’t expect it to be subsidized.
You’re entitled to your opinions, but you’re not entitled to just make up facts.
The fact is, I didn’t suggest that at all. And it’s pretty easy to prove it, just scroll up and re-read. If I did suggest that, I ask again (4th time?) to provide a link or quote to where I suggested it.
Here’s my opinion: it’s easier for you to just talk about something else than admit that you mis-read my post.
And here’s a prediction: You’ll either ignore this post, or your reply will ignore your error and try to move the conversation to something else.
Thanks for your prediction Mig. This is all getting a little too ‘playground’ for me now.
You have argued against subsidizing private school. As I have stated, again and again, that is effectively withdrawing public funding from a set of children. So when I pay for private school, you are suggesting that I lose the public funding for my child. Currently, there is a private element and a public element in the cost of my child’s education. You want me to lose access to the public element of the funding. As I said, you’re perfectly entitled to think that. You probably also think I should be paying higher taxes – well, Justin beat you to that one!
Mig – please go back and read a few of my posts again, if you have the time. Try to read them objectively, and hopefully you will at least be able to understand my argument, if not agree with it.
Anyway I think I’m going to sign off now. I really have done my best to explain this to everyone. Only jabber seems to be on the same wavelength as me, which I’m OK with.
I guess I was right in my prediction. I did go back and re-read, and didn’t find the part that I keep asking for.
You stated:
Which I didn’t.
I get it, it’s easy for you to argue with a straw man. But I guess you’re not used to being called out on it.
I literally just explained it in my previous post. I really don’t understand why you don’t see what, to me, seems perfectly obvious. This is the very definition of a debate that is going nowhere.
investor
I do get what you are trying to say. All children in the public system cost x amount of dollars paid for through taxes. You believe that you have the choice of taking your child out of the public system and putting them in the private system. Nobody is arguing with you on that count. But you also believe that families who choose to opt out of the public system are entitled to the amount of money that each kid in the public school costs or at least a portion of that. And that is where the discussion begins.
As I said way up the page, and I think my prediction was pretty good:
and here we still are.
In that same post I asked about somebody opting out of the public health system and using a private one. Do you think that public money should be used to pay for somebody’s knee surgery when they decide to use a private facility that offers a shorter waiting line, more extensive post-operative care, perhaps more skilled doctors and better staff to patient ratio than the rest of us would get. You might say yes; after all, by going to the private clinic you are taking pressure off the public system. I just have a hard time accepting a publicly funded two-tiered health system. And the same applies to a publicly funded two-tiered education system.
You specifically mentioned fewer educational assistants as proof that private schools are leaner as if educational assistants are a frill. They aren’t. And I am pretty sure you know why the private system doesn’t require them to the same extent as the public one. For the same reason that might explain why the public system requires a smaller class size ratio while many private schools brag about their small ratios. Public schools, as someone up the page pointed out, do not have the luxury of hand picking the people who walk through the door.
At the same time you seem to suggest that by opting out of the public system you lose complete access to the public schools. You said about private policing that you still have the ability to phone 911 should the need arise. Well the same does apply to public schools. Should the need arise - the private school burning down or going bankrupt or you losing faith in their system or your child being booted for some reason - the public school is still there for you, no questions asked.
You might be right about this
but I think it is a debate worth having.
investor
I am glad that you have found solace in the fact that in your failure to persuade/prevail in your arguments, Jabber understands. One must take comfort in even the smallest - might I say - even most microscopic of achievements.
Basi and Virk were charged. They ended up pleading guilty. oh wait the government bought them off for $6M before they or any of the important government members needed to testify. That non-scandal?
I don’t want to get into a numbers game here because numbers are confusing at the best of times. But your implication is that funding is all well and good.
I just want to point out that the increase doesn’t quite cover the cost of inflation.
As to the decrease in enrolment, that too isn’t easy to figure into a simple formula. All I know is that at one point there were well over 200 teachers in Prince Rupert; now there are about 150. At the same time teacher salary increases have not been above inflation. So, I don’t know what all of those numbers imply. .
Another factor that makes your numbers difficult to compartmentalize is the increase in awareness for programs that have in the past been ignored. When I became a learning assistant teacher in the late '90s there were very few designated students. Not to be alarming because we did start with a small number but my guess now is that designated students have quadrupled. (Somebody in the system may be able to help me out.)
The point being: If we are now trying to do a better job helping students that in the past didn’t have those supports and funding isn’t increasing beyond inflation, then one of two things happen.
a. designated kids don’t get the supports we know they need
or
b. funds are funneled from “regular” programs
To repeat, I am not arguing about what is an appropriate number for funding. I am just saying that throwing out $3.6B to $4.7B is not particularly helpful. .
One can’t have a debate with you, investor. You are unwilling to consider a view point that varies from the tired rhetoric emanating from the Fraser Institute.
Hey everybody, I’m feeling really sick, but I don’t want to go that “public” hospital for free. I want to go to a more expensive “private” hospital. But since I won’t be using the public system, would you mind paying for my private health care instead? Even a subsidy would be nice… say 50% ?
Oh man, the RCMP aren’t very effective at keeping the unwashed masses out of my gated community. Therefore, I will refuse to use them from now on, and hire a private police force instead. Can the taxpayer please pick up the tab? Even just a bit would help. Let’s say the taxpayer subsidize my private police force 50% or so? And since I won’t be using the RCMP anymore, I’ll actually be saving the taxpayer some money.
I know the city pays for an excellent Fire Department, but I think I can get better fire protection from a private contractor. Is it ok if the city gives me back some of that money I pay in taxes to subsidize my private fire protection? Just a little bit would be great. Let’s say 50%. And since I won’t be using City fire services any more, I’m actually saving the city money!
I’m going to build my own road along the highway. Since I won’t be using the highway anymore, what do you say the taxpayer pick up 50% of the tab of my private road? Only seems fair. I’ll actually be saving the taxpayer some money, because I won’t be using the public system any more.
The reason this debate is going around in a circle, @investor, is that you are arguing with a straw man, not with anything that I’ve said.
Your kids won’t lose their right to a free public education just because they go to a private school. No more than you’d lose the right to use the RCMP despite having a private security guard. And you wouldn’t lose the right to use a public hospital just because you use a private one. You keep insisting that I said the exact opposite of this. I didn’t. That’s why this is going around in a circle.
