We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Education Reform Bill Part I
Details
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2365
Description[?]:
| This aims to give private educational facilities a greater control over the running of their facilities. Centralised regulation limits the freedom of these schools, and furthermore serves to increase the costs of private education, which limits the possibility of children enrolling in these schools. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The education system.
Old value:: There is a free public education system and a small number of private schools, which are heavily regulated to ensure they teach adequate skills and information.
Current: There is a free public education system and a small number of private schools, which are heavily regulated to ensure they teach adequate skills and information.
Proposed: There is a free public education system alongside private schools.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:30:15, February 22, 2007 CET | From | Orange Liberty Party | To | Debating the Education Reform Bill Part I |
| Message | While generally the OLP is against regulation, in this case I must disagree. The regulations of private schools are only in place to ensure that children at these schools receive the necessary curriculum to be productive members of society in our world. Private schools are free to teach these lessons in the manner that they deem best, and are free to teach the subjects of their choosing outside of this core curriculum. Additionally, with specific respect to nursuries and preschools, I believe these institutions should be regulated the most closely because of the extra care and attention that very young children require. Ensuring that these children are taught and handled properly will allow them to grow up with the best disposition and learning ability possible, because at this age any damage done in their teaching becomes exponentially more difficult (and costly) to mend later in schooling. |
| Date | 17:30:50, February 22, 2007 CET | From | Orange Liberty Party | To | Debating the Education Reform Bill Part I |
| Message | Rick Kwan Secretary of Education and Culture, Orange Liberty Party |
| Date | 19:10:34, February 22, 2007 CET | From | Democrats | To | Debating the Education Reform Bill Part I |
| Message | ===The regulations of private schools are only in place to ensure that children at these schools receive the necessary curriculum to be productive members of society in our world.=== We feel that this is unnecessary. Remember that people pay to use private schools, who is going to pay for an inferior product when there is a free system at hand. Therefore we suggest that this is enough to ensure that private schools will ensure the necessary skills are taught. ===Private schools are free to teach these lessons in the manner that they deem best, and are free to teach the subjects of their choosing outside of this core curriculum.=== This is simply not true, as evidenced by the existence of regulation. ===Additionally, with specific respect to nursuries and preschools, I believe these institutions should be regulated the most closely because of the extra care and attention that very young children require. Ensuring that these children are taught and handled properly will allow them to grow up with the best disposition and learning ability possible, because at this age any damage done in their teaching becomes exponentially more difficult (and costly) to mend later in schooling.=== Again this is answered with reference to our first answer, who is going to pay for an inferior service when there is a free service on hand? Noone. |
| Date | 20:19:29, February 22, 2007 CET | From | Orange Liberty Party | To | Debating the Education Reform Bill Part I |
| Message | Ustaše said: > This is simply not true, as evidenced by the existence of regulation. I'm sorry, did you read what I wrote? Outside of the the fact that they must teach certain subjects, private schools are unregulated. They can teach other subjects that the public schools to not teach, and they can teach the core curriculum in ways that the government may consider "unorthodox" for public schools. Basically, they just have to teach English, history, math, science and social studies to a certain level of proficiency (I'd like to see you argue against that), and if they want, they can teach the children as they stand on their heads while the teacher wears a chicken suit, plays the drums, and talks to them with sock puppets. Ustaše said: (referencing preschools) > Again this is answered with reference to our first answer, who is going to pay for an inferior > service when there is a free service on hand? Noone. Then the government should not be running preschools. The OLP has proposed in the past the complete privitization of preschools. It's not our fault if you voted against it. Rick Kwan Secretary of Education and Culture, Orange Liberty Party |
| Date | 21:00:11, February 22, 2007 CET | From | Democrats | To | Debating the Education Reform Bill Part I |
| Message | """heavily regulated to ensure they teach adequate skills and information.""" Lets not pretend that merely involves the teaching of a few subjects. The teaching of "adequate skills and information" is what any school does, therefore it involves the regulation of anything a school does, aside from financial criteria perhaps. The government regulates the schools, so of course they can't teach the curriculum in a manner considered unorthodoc, because the government is regulating their teaching of the said subjects. Considering the subjects you have listed, there is absolutely nothing (unless mentioned in the description of a previous bill) that limits regulation to these subjects, so do not pretend that this is the case. And given that student creativity is the primary means of teaching children, you fail to take this matter into account. ===Then the government should not be running preschools. The OLP has proposed in the past the complete privitization of preschools. === And the OLP continue to baffle us. You argue against a partial increase of school freedom, but yet suggest you support full freedom for schools, does this not strike the OLP as a trifle odd? How can the OLP simultaneously criticize this Bill from both sides? Is it possible to suggest that schools should remain regulated, whilst then suggesting that they support the complete privitization of schools? ===It's not our fault if you voted against it.=== We cannot find any record of this Bill, unless you are referring to this one http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=102762 . It's not our fault if you voted against it |
| Date | 21:16:44, February 22, 2007 CET | From | Orange Liberty Party | To | Debating the Education Reform Bill Part I |
| Message | We can criticize this bill from both sides because you chose to give the bill two articles that deal with different things. I will be more than happy to spell out our platform on these two subjects for you. ARTICLE 1. The OLP advocates no government-run preschools, or as an alternative we can accept the local governments of the Nations handling this as they see fit locally. ARTICLE 2. The current value fits our ideals. Happy River Otter Day, Rick Kwan Secretary of Education and Culture, Orange Liberty Party |
| Date | 21:45:07, February 22, 2007 CET | From | Democrats | To | Debating the Education Reform Bill Part I |
| Message | The OLP fail to grasp our comments. It remains illogical to advocate a complete privitisation of a service such as pre-schools, and yet offer opposition to a move that would grant further rights to such schools. By opposing such a move the OLP signals its support for heavily regulated establishments. Again can the OLP back up there earlier slurs about Ustase failure to back certain Bills, furthermore if the OLP do wish to change certain laws, would they consider proposing Bills, or are they content to sit around? |
| Date | 22:08:59, February 22, 2007 CET | From | Black People's Party | To | Debating the Education Reform Bill Part I |
| Message | I disagree with this bill too. |
| Date | 11:28:25, February 24, 2007 CET | From | Democrats | To | Debating the Education Reform Bill Part I |
| Message | Article One removed as the OLP have passed a better option. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 380 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 370 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Jezvraljogadsrlji" means "Social" in the Jelbic languages. |
| Random quote: "The day is not far off when the economic problem will take the back seat where it belongs, and the arena of the heart and the head will be occupied or reoccupied, by our real problems, the problems of life and of human relations, of creation and behaviour and religion." - John Maynard Keynes |