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
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Democrats
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: December 2815
Description[?]:
| We currently do not do enough for the youth of our nation. Better educated youth leads to better economy in the long run. Every child should be able to fill their full potential and the government should help in any, and every, way they can. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The age until which students, if education were to be compulsary, are required to be educated (limited between 16 and 21).
Old value:: 16
Current: 16
Proposed: 18
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Higher education tuition policy.
Old value:: The government does not subsidize tuition, students must pay for higher education themselves. This does not include scholarship programs.
Current: The government subsidizes tuition only for students from families classified as low-income or poor.
Proposed: The government subsidizes tuition only for students from families classified as low-income or poor.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:19:43, September 09, 2009 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Education Reform |
| Message | I think giving young people the best start in life is vital and keeping them in education till 18 is a great way of doing this. Obviously not everyone wants to pursue an academic route so there should be suitable alternatives available like apprenticeships or on job training. Higher education should be available to all who wish to pursue it, regardless of background or wealth. To ensure those from a poorer background can achieve this, the government should subsidise their tuition fees. The budget can certainly afford this. Education should be free for all our children and the public education system should be the envy of the world. We would support this bill. Tony Manson Spokesman for Education LIberal Democratic Party |
| Date | 02:51:55, September 09, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Education Reform |
| Message | We are indifferent to Article 1. We cannot support Article 2, however - we are not oppose to the subsidization of Higher Education, per se, but we believe that a system whereby fees are subsidized by the government and then repaid by students when they have commenced their careers is preferable. Essentially, this would be more like a 'loan' than welfare. We also believe that government assistance should be based on performance, encouraging competition. We cannot support Article 3, either - we believe that education is a matter for local governments, and that there is no real need for the federal government to involve itself in the education system at all. This Article is rooted in the myth that the federal government is more effective in funding and managing services than local governments - this is simply untrue. Education policy should be devolved to local governments, at a level closer to families and communities. |
| Date | 18:53:22, September 09, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Elitist Party | To | Debating the Education Reform |
| Message | As an elitist party we strongly support Article 1., as it increases the amount of time spent by children in educational institutions. We are not so sympathetic about Article 2 but as a compromise we might support. If the NDPR wishes to remove Article 3 (unacceptable because of the reasons listed by our honourable colleagues from the RHP) then we will support this bill. |
| Date | 00:21:36, September 10, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Education Reform |
| Message | The NDRP will remove Article 3 of the Education Reform bill and proceed to voting. |
| Date | 11:08:38, September 10, 2009 CET | From | Revolutionary Workers Party | To | Debating the Education Reform |
| Message | We cannot support this bill as article one does not recognise the many skilled and applied trades colleges which does not always legally count as formal education. |
| Date | 11:08:53, September 10, 2009 CET | From | Revolutionary Workers Party | To | Debating the Education Reform |
| Message | We cannot support this bill as article one does not recognise the many skilled and applied trades colleges which does not always legally count as formal education. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 208 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 97 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Discuss flag designs at the Flag Designs thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=37 |
| Random quote: "Democrats always assure us that deterrence will work, but when the time comes to deter, they're against it. " - Ann Coulter |