Nicky+Opinion+Writing

= Education shouldn’t be free to everyone =

Free education has been a big argument in many countries. Many people believe that we have free education but some of these people aren’t parents themselves. While others who have children think that we do not have free education. I am one of these people and although I don’t have children I know the costs of sending a child to school. According to thefreedicationary.com education means teaching and learning also it means that when a child goes to school to learn. Even as an adult you may have to pay fees for university and other places where you can go to learn. To me education is teaching a child how to do things so that they are ready for life. Even though so many people say education is free it is not. How can it be free when you have to give ‘donations’ to the school?

Firstly if education was free schools might not be able to pay for things like books, school trips and to get better things in the school. If this happened then parents might have to pay bigger taxes so that some more money from the government could go into the schools to pay for things like these. This could make parents paying for education still. This might make taxes bigger then what they are already and because the government is in charge of this they could make the taxes that go to schools bigger what you would have paid if you had just paid the school the money.

Another reason why education should not be free is there could be children out there who do not want to their parent’s might send them to school because it is free and the parent’s want their children to learn. This might lead to people not having as much money because they are paying for children who don’t even want to come to school because they don’t like it. These are just two of the reasons why education should not be free.

On the other hand some parents do not have the money to send their child to school because of the cost provided which according to an article in the Sunday Times it can cost from $75 to $200 but it could even be up to $575 for some schools in New Zealand. As well as this you might have to pay for a child to sit their NZQA exam test which could cost up to $75 as well as uniforms $300-$400 in some schools. But on top of this you will sometimes have to pay for stationary, sports and music lessons, extra fees for some subjects, fees to enter in a competition and camps. Bear in mind these fees are not for private schools but for public schools where children are supposed to get free education. Paying for these things can leave the family with not enough money to buy things like food, blankets and even sometimes birthday and Christmas presents.

Secondly education should be free because parents spend enough money buying food, clothes and even taking a family holiday. Those children whose parents get paid very little might not get as much food as those who earn bigger raises. Also those poor families may not be able to take their children out to see family and friends because of the cost. If education was free these families might be able to get things for their children. These are just two of the reasons why I think education should be free.

In conclusion I don’t think education should be free to everyone because of the reasons that I have above and many more. I also think that it can be free to some people that earn it by getting a scholarship or something like that. Also I think that handicapped people should get some free education but the parents should still have to pay for some things like books and stuff. Overall as I have stated education shouldn’t be free to everyone because it could make parents taxes higher and because there are children that may not be children who want to learn so it’s just a waste of money. My Reflection: I agree with the teachers comment that my piece of work was really confusing and I could have spent a lot more time on it to get it up to standards. I think that next time I should take more time out on my writing and get it finished up to my standards. =**__The Smacking Law 632__**=

Smacking is one of the common debate topics in New Zealand at the moment and definitely in Parliament. The reason of this being a big topic is because a lady named Sue Bradford and many other people think that smacking is a criminal offence. The ‘no smacking law’ was passed in June 2007. The New Zealand police are allowed to look at any reported smacking of a child in any home in New Zealand. In December 2008, New Zealand police reported that in just 6 months between April and October 2008 they had nine smacking cases and 49 minor acts of discipline. Just from all of this, four were prosecutions of ‘minor acts of physical discipline’ and three of them resulted in convictions. To me smacking is just teaching your child a lesson just like sending them to a naughty corner or taking something off them. Smacking a child is different to beating them, because with smacking it is sometimes on the bum or the hand and beating is sometimes on other parts of the body with objects. I think that the smacking law should still be there but to make it so that parents who smack their child lightly once in a while should not be charged with physical abuse. The question is; ‘Should a smack as part of a good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand’. I believe that smacking should be allowed in New Zealand and these are the reasons why: Firstly as I have stated smacking does nothing but show a child what they did wrong. To me smacking should not be criminal offence. Smacking is defined by the oxford dictionary as a hard slap or hit from the hand. I believe that children should be allowed to get a smack because as I said it shows a child what is wrong with what they are doing. Giving a child a smack once in a while is all right because it’s not like beating them with a stick or some other objects until it has turned into a physical abuse. It’s just a hit on the bottom to try and teach the child what they did was wrong.

Also I believe keeping the smacking law is just a waste of time because according to statistics 84% of 170,000 child abuses, parents have been accused because the child was misbehaving. Also 150,000 children and their families had their homes broken into by investigators resulting to serious or long-term harm to their emotional and social well-being. I think that instead of worrying about this the government could look into more important things like boy racers and the driving and drinking ages. I think this because most cases that have been reported are not actual child abuse.

In conclusion I think that smacking should be allowed in homes. Taking away the law some parents may beat their child so I think that a new law should be made that just allows parents to smack a child lightly on the bottom instead of the ‘No smacking law’ Many parents believe that it is alright to smack a child if they are doing something wrong or they are being naughty. Smacking a child does more good then harm if you are not beating them everyday. Also there are much more horrible situations like boy racers, the drinking ages and driving ages. These are just some of the reasons why I think smacking should be allowed in New Zealand.