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: Providing a Public Education for the General Public
Details
Submitted by[?]: Greens Party of Rutania
Status[?]: defeated
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: April 2158
Description[?]:
| Recognising; that all members of the public have a RIGHT to education Recognising; that tertiary education should be about the pursuit and virtue of gaining knowledge as well as a degree or other higher form of diploma Recognising; that the best education is one based on secular models that allow for the maximum pursuit of knowledge without bias or censorship Recognising; that the government has both a responsibility to ensure the education of all citizens is distributed as well as providing secular services… Concludes; that the government as the only solely citizen-interested national organisation with the responsibility and resources to provide for tertiary education should provide for the national tertiary education of citizens in the interest of preserving secular society and maximising the pursuit of knowledge for all citizens. Free of religious, ideological or financial interest the government is the only body that can be trusted with such a significant and nation-shaping task. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Higher education institutions.
Old value:: The government does not maintain any forms of higher education.
Current: The government maintains a system of universities, vocational schools, and colleges nationwide.
Proposed: The government maintains a system of universities, vocational schools, and colleges nationwide.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The regulation of higher education.
Old value:: The government does not fund any public higher education institutions, permitting only private higher education institutions to exist.
Current: The government allows private higher education but regulates it to meet nationally set standards.
Proposed: The government does not allow private higher education institutions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 10:02:21, August 31, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | Strongly for! |
| Date | 10:44:14, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | OOC: thanks! |
| Date | 13:38:14, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | Against. Government provided education is full of bias, all citizens already have a right to education |
| Date | 15:26:20, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | Point one: if you’re going to use the argument of bias then consider this. Compared to a government school that accepts a diversity of citizens and has a duty and is regulated to provide a variety of material to accommodate the multicultural and multi-religious nature of the students to a religious school where do you think the greater bias will be found? In that case your argument is moot. Point Two: This isn’t a debate with the intent to focuses on wether or not citizens have a right to an education but about the fact that privatised education never offers the same comprehensive variety and level of academic opportunities as those universities operated and controlled in the public interest. |
| Date | 15:50:33, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | Against. All people current have the right to an education and money is provided for those who cannot otherwise afford it. The same end result is achieved (everyone getting an education) but our system gives them a mroe efficient, better and overall cheaper education. |
| Date | 18:00:21, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | OOC: i did have a direct reply for you LIP but the internet ate it! Grr. summery: this isn't a debate about wether or not poeple have a right to an education, that's already taken for granted but about the responcibility the government has as an obligation to citizens. If it's so cheap why is it subsidised? Relgious and coporatised education censures education, real learning. Isn't education supposed to be about learning to thik critically, not being afraid to discuss the truth and asking hard questions? Yet how can this be done on a campus where God and prfits acts as a censorship on academic freedome? |
| Date | 18:08:24, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Civic Democratic Party | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | Against. We already give out loans and vouchers to low income students. There is no need for a federally funded higher education system as there are plenty of private universities that are flourishing within Rutania at this very moment. |
| Date | 18:18:41, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | Private education establishments will teach free of bias as that is what people want and also if they dont, students will go elsewhere. I dont know about your country, but there are no religious universities that i know of and if people want to go to them. They Should be ALLOWED to do SO! Otherwise we are infringing their freedoms. Corporations do not teach about profits, what an absurd idea, education companies seek to provide a comprehensive and good education so they get a good reputation and therefore lots of students. |
| Date | 18:36:11, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | And why do they want lots of students? to make money. Money cannot and should not be the sole of education because it fundamentally corrupts the pursuit of truth. Why should students be indebted to the state for receiving their education? a fundamental right that should be without restrictions. Why are we sabotaging the great project of the enlightenment by subjecting students to a system of education based on generating profits and pushing through the maximum number of graduates regardless of their skills in critical thinking. The best system of education is a national, coherent and public system To the LIP I reiterate that just because things are not so in your own nation that they are not or cannot be possible in others. |
| Date | 18:38:54, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | There is still the assumption that all students will be on a level playing field but they are not, those with the most resources will be able to enter the capuses with the best and most appropriate resources to what area of interest they wish to pursue but those who are poor, unemployed, single parents or with disabilities are denied that level of access based on life changing circumstances that should have no impact on the level and degree of education they can recieve. |
| Date | 20:14:45, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | How does there resources get changed with a public education system compared to our private education system that subsidises the poor? It doesnt, moot point. |
| Date | 21:07:59, August 31, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | "The same end result is achieved (everyone getting an education) but our system gives them a mroe efficient, better and overall cheaper education." You might want to consider the fact that private education is generally more expensive as private schools have to make profit as well. Education is there for the welfare and well-being of the people, not to earn lots of money with it! |
| Date | 21:30:17, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | Why do they have to make profit? They only need to make profit (on top of salaries I mean) if they are plcs, which I assume they are not. Anyway, overall they WILL be cheaper, as competition between schools will force prices down. No one will make profit if they charge much more than all the other schools in the area. Yet again our right honourable opponents shows their lack of understanding of economics. |
| Date | 22:55:53, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | We strongly favour this proposal. |
| Date | 11:30:14, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | And once again the government of today has proven they are unable to distinguish between economic theory and economic practice. The quality of a completely private education system will be inferior to that of a government system because this private system does one of two things. The first is that it drives a wedge between the wealthy who can afford the exorbitant fees of the nation’s elite academic schools and those who are unable to afford anything but the most sub-standard and basic education with or without government subsistence. Where is the level playing field that liberals cherish so much? This is crating a huge class divide between those who can and cannot afford an education and the consequences of these differences will affect the rest of the lives of students. Wouldn’t it be fairer to give all citizens regardless of their parents’ income the same high quality of education and opportunity of extra curricular activities? The second is that it degrades the quality of education. Standardised testing only ensures that students know how to regurgitate facts and figures, not to think creatively or critically. This is effectively the dumbing down of an entire generation and our nation and our people will be poorer for it. The schools located in the lower-income districts and economically depressed regions will be unable to afford the best teaching staff, extra curricular activities or provide fresh and new material to students. It will entrench a generation of students with limited opportunities who will remain at a distinct disadvantage to others simply of the basis of how wealth their parents where. |
| Date | 11:53:07, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | Your second point has the FP in hysterics, standardised testing is what is implemented in a state system not a private system and therefore there is a dumbing down and just regurgitation in the state system. Look at Britain, every year the pass mark goes up and the tests get slightly easier. It used to be hard to get an A-Level A Grade, now 25% of people get them. University degrees in Britain are so respected because each University sets its own exams and not the government, therefore they are better and more suited to their courses. They are also more respected. |
| Date | 12:54:29, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | Your first point is just plain wrong. Students with more modest financial means are provided with vouchers so that they can afford to go to most schools of their choice, provided that they are academically able enough. As the Freedom Party has explained, private schooling provides a better standard of education as schools compete against each other, and for the same reason provide education which is much cheaper than that managed centrally and funded by general taxation. |
| Date | 13:02:58, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | so that they can afford to go to most schools of their choice ---> but no all. |
| Date | 19:54:47, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | Nor will they be able to under your proposal. I fail to see your point. |
| Date | 05:05:01, September 02, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | Yes they would because we wouldn't be charging students for the RIGHT to receive an education. It's simply a viscous combination of ignorance and extremism that would rather see private schools provide a two tiered level of education; one for the rich and one for the poor. All the talk of vouchers and subsidies is only a façade to cover the fact that the privatised system doesn’t provide a fair or universal system of education and institutionalises unfair, unequal and artificial class divides. Free universal education is the only way to ensure that a level playing field is offered to all citizens regardless of where they live, the income of their parents or what academic pursuits they want to take up. This is a case of providing the conditions needed for real liberty, a level playing field from which all citizens have the same opportunity to prosper or fail on their own merits. |
| Date | 12:01:48, September 02, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | You are proposing a system where students are not subsidised to go to private education establishments that are inherently better. Therefore the poor will have less access to establishments than they do now as we currently subsidise them significantly. |
| Date | 16:55:45, September 07, 2005 CET | From | Greens Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Providing a Public Education for the General Public |
| Message | The argument that private schools are inherently better is a concerningly elitist one. Public schools only become over-crowded, under-resourced or unsafe becuase the government does not continue to provide the maximum funds available to feed the brains of the nation's next generation. Private schools indoctrinate students with a more narrow-minded perspective of society and and the value of co-operation, compromise and community. All that private schools offer is the same level of education that should be expected of the average government school in a nation that upholds education as one of the corner-stones of an educated, progressive, prosperous and peaceful society. The poor will have better access to an education becuase they will not be forced to beg for an education on the will of government charity. The argument does not make sense, under this system <all> children will have the <same> access to a excellent education poor and rich alike so to say this disavantages the poor simply falls flat on its face. It's beneath a nation like our own to see that those who struggle to make ends meet must beg the government to hand them charity so their children may get the most basic of an education available. Despite the subsidy system there will still be too many children who attend "poor schools" which offer a blunt, sub-standard education and will breed generations of people without the skills or capacity to better themselves or the quality of life expected for their children. This is the sort of education system that we currently endorse. It's simply not acceptable that the quality of an education that a child receives in this nation depends on their parents income and that the government cannot see that one of the most worth-while expenditures of tax payers money is to provide a world class public education. I simply ask the question; what else could be so much more important for the government to spend the collected monies of the people of our nation on? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 554 | ||||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 45 |
| Random fact: Players are expected to play the game independently and should not share their passwords or allow others to access their accounts. |
| Random quote: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything!" - Rick Santorum |