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: Progressive Reform Bill - Public Schools
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive Party
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: June 2130
Description[?]:
| We see no reason why the national government would or should run higher education institutes but not primary and secondary schools. To properly streamline these systems, we propose the formation of a national public school system. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The education system.
Old value:: Education is private, but the government issues vouchers to pay for the schooling of disadvantaged children.
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 | 16:20:41, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Public Schools |
| Message | We support. Education is a vital necessity for an advanced society. We should fund them very heavily too. We can use this to, over time, accrue a significant technological and skill advantage over other nations. |
| Date | 17:39:06, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Public Schools |
| Message | This is a very good idea. |
| Date | 18:01:33, October 21, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Public Schools |
| Message | As we believe in the inherent superiority of the private sector, and the increased effeciencies therein, we must oppose this bill. The current system of private schools alows for maximum diversity in education, while th evouchers for lower income families allows for the inclusivity necessary. |
| Date | 19:16:17, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Public Schools |
| Message | Don't you find that making education compulsory yet having no public schools is some type of subsidy though? If we were to truly make education "efficient", why not just end compulsory education? |
| Date | 19:23:46, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Public Schools |
| Message | Because compulsory education vastly improves literacy, and an illiterate populace is never going to be able to support more than the most basic of industries. Kiss high tech goodbye. Even the higher end of the manufacturing sector would leave us. Hell, services requires decent education, and even if tourism can technically be operated by the illiterate, that would be a BAD international image to present. |
| Date | 04:32:10, October 22, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Public Schools |
| Message | This policy makes no sense, except to line the pockets of those who are ALREADY richest. Surely, education should be sponsored for those LEAST able to cover it themselves... but why shouldn't the idle rich pay for the benefits of education? |
| Date | 04:35:58, October 22, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Public Schools |
| Message | Yes, education would be free for the poorest of our citizen as well as the middle class and upper class of Likatonia. I have a feeling that the private schools will become the domain of the upper class, so they still will be paying for their education. It makes little sense to us that the national government would run public nurseries and public universities but not primary or secondary schools. |
| Date | 08:26:45, October 22, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Public Schools |
| Message | Response to the Progressive Party: The AAP is inclined to agree, but, I believe, the argument thus far, has been that nursery and university are not 'compulsary' education. Personally, the AAP representatives like the idea of the unfortunate being sponsored from creche to Masters... while the richer elements of society 'give back' some of what they have been lucky enough to gain. The Progressive Party has, no doubt, noticed that the private schools seem to offer better educations, which is why the rich favour them. It seems only fair to the AAP, that this advantage should be available to all who want it... and the state can help those who cannot help themselves. |
| Date | 08:59:39, October 22, 2005 CET | From | Representative Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Public Schools |
| Message | We are in favour of free public education provided by the government, however we are worried that privately educated students could have an unfair advantage because of better facilities in their schools and the existance of "old boy networks" from the more prestigious private schools. It is very important that any public schools that are established receive the level of funding that they need, so that all our citezens rich or poor can be assured an excellent education. |
| Date | 09:23:01, October 22, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Public Schools |
| Message | Response to the Representative Party: The RP seems to have a fairly similar view to that of the AAP on this issue. However, the AAP has concluded that the most effective way to guarantee equal advantage, is to make ALL schools 'private'... but allow the government to sponsor the education of (what would have been) the Public system. |
| Date | 12:46:23, October 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Public Schools |
| Message | The problem with the current system is that it effectively introduces a 'child tax' for those above the cut off point. Because education is compulsory they HAVE to pay for education for each child they have. many families who would not be considered disadvantaged would still have huge problems paying this if they had lots of children. I don't think you all realise quite how expensive a good private education is. As to your arguments concerning the elitism of private schools, that will still exist under the current system, even more so in fact. The vouchers given out will only be for a certain amount, so to keep the poor out of their schools tjhe elitist private schools will just have to hike their prices so that the government sponsored kids still couldnt afford it. In effect, there would be cheap private schools, educational dumps for the poor kids which would not have nearly as good teachers or facilities as the rich ones being funded by the cash of the rich kids. The only way to remove the heirarchical system would be to fix prices on education, which would in no way be condusive to a good educational system. If we provide our children with a good education in early life, we are much less likely to have to pay them welfare later on, and our economy will take a boost that will compensate for the added expense to us. |
| Date | 00:20:59, October 24, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Public Schools |
| Message | While the AAP is usually in agreement with the LPE, it is impossible to agree with almost ANY of the 'points' made. 1) If the voucher system is means-tested, then families with more children are assessed at a different threshhold to families with less children. Thus, nobody should have 'huge problems', because the 'disadvantaged' threshhold DIFFERS with family size. 2) The 'voucher' is for an education... not for a specific monetary value. Academic excellence may still be a requirement for a given school... but the voucher system stops qualified students from being exempted from a certain school due to simple economics. 3) "If we provide our children with a good education in early life, we are much less likely to have to pay them welfare later on"... is simply not true. If ALL children have excellent educations, but we have less than 100% employment, there will ALWAYS be some necessity to support the unemployed - no matter HOW MANY graduates we have. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 362 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 39 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 99 |
| Random fact: Players must never be asked for their Particracy password. This includes Moderation; a genuine Moderator will never ask for your password. |
| Random quote: "This country has far more problems than it deserves and far more solutions than it applies." - Ralph Nader |