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: Private Schools Policy Changes
Details
Submitted by[?]: Williams Family
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: August 3308
Description[?]:
| We already allow home schooling and gives parents the choice to educate their children as they see fit. Private schools don't need to be in small numbers nor do they need to be "heavily regulated". The types of parents that are willing to forego the free education provided by the government in favor of private schooling are likely to be capable in determining the best places to put their children. Additionally, allowing the proliferation of private schools will mean competition and will hopefully encourage all of them to perform to standards comparable - or even exceeding - their public education counterparts. In short, this bill will allow for private schools to exist in greater numbers and deal with less government regulation - leaving it to the parents to make smart decisions on where to send their children. It makes sense that they will; since they'll be paying out of their own pockets if they decide against public schooling. |
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 | 03:27:40, May 23, 2012 CET | From |  Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Private Schools Policy Changes |
| Message | The problem, with this, is that private schools can be biased in terms of classism, racism, religious prejudice, etc. These things will be subjectively obvious, but the discrimination won't be shown on paperwork. Private schools are allowed to be exclusive of students they "don't like" and that is wrong. The schools may also promote propaganda; they may influence the interpretation of the information they teach the students. By being exclusive, the private schools may raise a generation of arrogant children who believe they're superior to others who "weren't able" to "qualify" for entry. What are the most common reasons for denied entry? Things like lack of money, or lack of corrupt connections. -- Regardless, we understand that the Williams family is promoting, but we are unsure of our position at the moment. It is probably best to leave this to local governments, even though we don't like the idea of doing that. Such a matter is too delicate, but a flat out decision may displease too many citizens. |
| Date | 03:49:04, May 23, 2012 CET | From | Williams Family | To | Debating the Private Schools Policy Changes |
| Message | Definitely something to think about and a point of view the Williams Family has yet to consider. For now, we believe the benefits may outweigh the good for a couple of reasons. 1) Although the potential for breeding of arrogance and undeserved sense of superiority among private school children exists, it's important to note that the not all private schools will be like this. Some will be - for want of a better term - "middle-class" level. These will probably not create such feelings in their students. As for the more expensive and exclusive private schools, the types of parents likely to send their children to such schools were probably going to raise them to be - pardon my blunt language - stuck up brats anyway. 2) You also refer to denial of entry to students that don't have financial resources or corrupt connections. Students without the financial resources to attend schools that charge ridiculously high tuition rates should simply accept that they wouldn't fit in at such schools anyway. These schools are likely to be filled with the "stuck up brats" I referred to earlier and - even if we could "force" these schools to take students with less financial resources - it would create its own problems (not the least of which would be trouble for those students to fit in). As for lack of corrupt connections, it's likely - or at least very possible - that some schools will have this sort of approach but the Williams Family does not believe it to be the government's job to prevent these schools from admitting who they like. We provide free public education and it's unlikely that all private schools will be this corrupt in their selection of students. All in all, the Williams Family still believes this to be a step in the right direction for our education system by allowing greater choice - while maintaining the standard we've set for providing free education to all children in Beluzia. The Karav Family's views are worth serious consideration, however, and it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. |
| Date | 05:00:34, May 23, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Private Schools Policy Changes |
| Message | Well, as royal families, we can set a good example by sending our children to public school. We get your points, but we still think the best options, for the middle class, are to send their children to public schools. I'm still in favour of community-based private schools which raise children, who live in the same community, together. -- Our main concern will still remain, and that is the propaganda that will be spread in private schools to somewhat alter the students' interpretation of the "information" they get. It is why we are in favour of heavy regulation. Imagine religious schools that are allowed to brainwash students with biased theological misinformation. This is expected to an extent, but eventually, discrimination and a conservative oppressive cult will be formed. Students of such institutions are likely to oppress others, feeling a sense of unity and acceptance, only around others exactly like themselves. We want anyone to be able to mix and mingle. |
| Date | 05:05:13, May 23, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Private Schools Policy Changes |
| Message | I think we can leave this up to local governments, so that the ratio of public:private schools can vary in each parish. http://classic.particracy.net/viewnews.php?newsid=335621&nation=9 |
| Date | 05:36:04, May 23, 2012 CET | From | Williams Family | To | Debating the Private Schools Policy Changes |
| Message | Yes - it would be a good idea to actively promote public schooling that way. Private schools might be more suitable for certain cases however - such as students with special needs (gifted or handicapped) as well as those who might find public school life difficult for other miscellaneous reasons. The idea is to keep the options open while encouraging the majority to take advantage of the high standard of education provided by the federal government. Leaving it up to local governments makes sense - and it's clear that the largest group of Beluzians support that - but I think it's important that we continue to mandate the availability of free education at the federal level. Falling just 2 percentage points behind a law devolving it to local governments is the very same proposal being made here by our party. Since the most popular choice might compromise educational equality across Beluzia - particularly as it relates to accessibility to lower income families - it might be best to go with the second choice. Both our parties agree, of course, that free education is all but necessary but we can't assume that all parties that control regions now (and in future) will share that view. The federal government must take a clear stance on this issue to ensure uniformity across our nation on something as critical as this. No region's children (who - by the way - have no say in who governs their parish) should have their future blighted because the ruling party doesn't think education should be a right of all children - regardless of economic situation - and one the government must provide to everyone. |
| Date | 06:06:08, May 23, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Private Schools Policy Changes |
| Message | There is no chance of the availability of public schools to be compromised. There is more support for public schools than private schools, according to the poll. No region would have private schools getting more votes, unless schools are privately run, but publicly accessed (where the government subsidizes the cost for approved institutions). -- If the most popular decision is leaving it to local governments, and the 2nd most popular decision is allowing both, then each parish would only vary in the ratio of public:private schools. In no case would there be the banning of public schools, since that is of the least popular of options. The 3rd most popular option is where educational institutions are privately run, but subsidized for low-income families, regarded as economically "disadvantaged" compared to most children. This is any case where a family would go near bankrupt if they were to pay for everyone to attend school. We would issue vouchers to pay for their education to prevent that. The 4th most popular option is the banning of private schools. All education would be public and free. The 5th most popular option is where all schools are private and profit-based. This only captures circa 12% of the vote. Bastard snobs. The 6th most popular option is where all schools are private, but free. The government would subsidize the cost for everyone. -- We see that the 2nd least popular option is the only one which puts low-income families at a disadvantage. Only the 2 least popular options ban public schools completely, demanding money for everything; the only difference is who the schools are allowed to take money from, whether it's from the government (who would pay for all education), or the citizens themselves. In addition to those is the 3rd option, which doesn't put low-income families at a disadvantage. Your expectation, that "the most popular choice might compromise educational equality across Beluzia - particularly as it relates to accessibility to lower income families" may not be possible at all. And you have to remember that it's not only 20.14% of the population that supports devolving it to local governments. That 20.14% is just pro-choice, but the rest have specific choices. If it is left to local government, it is not only that 20.14% that is satisfied; if someone's view is shared widely in his parish, he is also satisfied. Many supporters of all the other choices would be happy if it is left to local government, since others in their respective regions may share their views. I think the only unhappy persons would be the ones who want education to be entirely private, because their view doesn't seem to be able to dominate any region. If you leave things to local government, it's not only the 20.14% that is happy. Wherever one of the other choices are available, those people will be happy too. It allows the government to satisfy different demands at the same time. However, if we implement a flat-out law like the 2nd most popular one, which only has 18.04% support, we will end up with a very unhappy 71.96% of the population. While the decision seems to allow choice, some would perceive otherwise. The "good quality" private schools would be too expensive. I think local governments would simply regulate the ratio. Right now, there are more public than private schools. Instead of evening it out, we can allow different parishes to have different proportions. |
| Date | 17:01:07, May 23, 2012 CET | From | Williams Family | To | Debating the Private Schools Policy Changes |
| Message | Your support for devolving it to local government rests on one thing then; the assumption that each controlling party will do what's best (or at least what's "best liked") by their population. What I don't want to see is a party that - for example - supports the abuse of schoolchildren under the pretext of discipline (not to throw words) - to be able to further harm our childrens' future by implementing policies such as the 2nd least popular option. I guess it's a possibility that - should such a situation take place - the low-income families' children could be sent to schools in neighboring parishes with better educational provisions. I still support my proposal in favor of the current law but if the Karav family proposes a bill in future that leaves it to local governments with Williams family will vote Yes . |
| Date | 17:47:45, May 23, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Private Schools Policy Changes |
| Message | Corporal punishment is already illegal nationwide; no form of direct discipline is allowed, but we get your point. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 30 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 39 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 30 |
| Random fact: Players consent to the reasonable and predictable consequences of the role-play they consent to. For example, players who role-play their characters as committing criminal offences should expect those characters to experience the predictable judicial consequences of that. |
| Random quote: "Those looking for ideology in the White House should consider this: for the men who rule our world, rules are for other people." - Naomi Klein |