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 Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Alderdath Rabrati Konciralati Erradikati
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: November 2183
Description[?]:
| If the public schools are so great (and we're not saying they're not), then everyone should be going to them even with private schools competing. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The education system.
Old value:: Education is entirely public and free; private schools are banned.
Current: There is a free public education system alongside private schools.
Proposed: There is a free public education system alongside private schools.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:26:30, February 06, 2006 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the Private Schools Act |
| Message | That's a simplistic and quite absurd argument. Private schools exceed because they can regulate their admission policies, charge extortionate and exclusive fees, and generally ignore the wider institutional difficulties of modern education by pandering to an elite. Funding and focus should be left within the public school system. |
| Date | 18:06:45, February 06, 2006 CET | From | Union of Work-Shy Elements | To | Debating the Private Schools Act |
| Message | As usual the stance of the Socialist Party is unless everybody can get/do something then nobody should be allowed to get/do the same thing. It’s a regrettable that they so regularly adhere this terribly small-minded viewpoint. |
| Date | 21:52:46, February 06, 2006 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the Private Schools Act |
| Message | this doesn't even provide for regulation of the newly founded private schools, so how do we know what they are teaching the children is correct, and not complete gibberish? opposed unless some regulation is introduced. |
| Date | 22:36:00, February 06, 2006 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the Private Schools Act |
| Message | What a wonderfully pompous and asinine caricature of our argument! The Intransigent Party outdoes itself with each post, truly. No, don't let the fact that education is so fundamentally important to both society and people's lives, don't consider that it should be based on one's ability and desire to learn rather then one's financial situation, and don't even think about the absurdity of defending a privilege because it's unfair *to* the privileged that they should possibly be asked to play on the same field as everybody else. Bravo, comrades! |
| Date | 02:41:51, February 07, 2006 CET | From | Alderdath Rabrati Konciralati Erradikati | To | Debating the Private Schools Act |
| Message | On one hand you say that private education is worse than public education, but on the other hand you say that '[education] should be based on one's ability and desire to learn rather than one's financial situation', meaning that you think if a private system was also put into place, a better education (a private one) would be given to people with money... meaning that you would think private schools would give a better education! Or... something... We just confused ourselves. Please hold while our brain reboots. |
| Date | 12:33:20, February 07, 2006 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the Private Schools Act |
| Message | No we did not say that "private education is worse" - that is a lie. From our very first post, we in fact explained why private schools "exceed": because unlike the public education system, they don't have a responsibility to educate. They can pick and choose, meaning that children with behavioural or health problems, children to low intelligence or learning difficulties, children from poor social backgrounds or with disruptive home lives - in short, those who are most vulnerable and/or need the most help can be turned away. Instead, private schools offer a way for very rich people to buy a better education than everyone else - exclusive tuition fees ensure that class sizes are kept down, and that spending per person is dramatically higher than the average school. It's simple numbers, not the miracle of the market or any other such nonsense. The KSP believes in education as an absolute right of every child. It believes in good education for every child. Every child. Not just rich children. The way to improve standards and opportunity is not to allow a privileged minority shut themselves off in their own private schools. No, it is to tackle the problems that our public schools face, so that everyone benefits rather than an elite few. - And yes, we totally stand behind our remark that it is better that children succeed due to their "ability and desire to learn" than their "financial situation". It is rather preposterous that the Loonies do not. |
| Date | 15:01:04, February 07, 2006 CET | From | Union of Work-Shy Elements | To | Debating the Private Schools Act |
| Message | If you have more money should you not be able to buy a more expensive car? Likewise if you have more money should you not be able to buy a more expensive education? The logical and fair answer to both is yes. Why shouldn’t people be able to utilise a private education system or a privatised hospital? As long as they continue to pay their (extortionate) taxes there is no harm in doing so, in fact these people are doing the state run alternatives a good service by lessening the burden on it’s limited resources. This whole agenda of banning private services stinks of prejudice and nothing more. |
| Date | 20:26:54, February 07, 2006 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the Private Schools Act |
| Message | Education is not a car. Nor is healthcare. They are both services, and the right of all people irrespective of wealth. |
| Date | 21:39:40, February 07, 2006 CET | From | Union of Work-Shy Elements | To | Debating the Private Schools Act |
| Message | Kundrati Socialist Party wrote: “Education is not a car. Nor is healthcare. They are both services…” That makes little or no difference. Just as someone can buy a product (car), they can buy a service (education or healthcare). The question is, why does the Socialist Party support the right for someone buy the services of a babysitter or even a prostitute but finds it totally unacceptable for the same person to buy the services of a teacher or doctor? Kundrati Socialist Party wrote: “…and the right of all people irrespective of wealth.” It would be interesting, nay fascinating, to hear how allowing a combined education system would impinge upon this right. If anything it would seem to extend this right, allowing the population a greater choice. |
| Date | 22:08:29, February 07, 2006 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the Private Schools Act |
| Message | "The question is, why does the Socialist Party support the right for someone buy the services of a babysitter or even a prostitute but finds it totally unacceptable for the same person to buy the services of a teacher or doctor?" Because in no way does money mean you deserve any better than the rest. Does the business man deserve a "better" doctor than the low wage worker simply because he has more? No, he does not. Does the child who was born into a rich family deserve a "better" education than the child born into a poor family? No, they do not. Besides, Education and Health are about just that, education and making healthy, not profit motive. |
| Date | 23:44:06, February 07, 2006 CET | From | Union of Work-Shy Elements | To | Debating the Private Schools Act |
| Message | Well then that answer validates our very first assessment of government policy! To disallow just one single person the chance to benefit from a first class education just because that same education is unavailable to all is an absolutely shameful position to adopt. Viewed objectively it seems to be nothing short of discrimination! Why can’t there be excellent private schools alongside excellent state schools? They’re not mutually exclusive. All banning private institutions does is to drag the best schools down in some vain attempt to achieve parity! Surely we should actually be trying to match the levels set by the private sector. For goodness sake, if you want educational equality then achieve this by improving the poorer schools, not by banning the better ones! |
| Date | 12:22:43, February 08, 2006 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the Private Schools Act |
| Message | You are being ridiculous. It is not "discrimination" to abolish privilege, especially if it concerns such a vital public service as education or healthcare, which, as the LSU quite rightly said, should have nothing to do with your wealth. Secondly, as far the hyperbole you closed with, it does not "drag the best schools down". It means that a tiny minority of schools can't cheat to "succeed" through exclusive admissions policies that mean they a) don't have to deal with the problems everyday people and schools cope with and b) can spent a far greater amount than is affordable. Such an opportunity has nothing in common with the meritocracy our schools should emulate, and serves only to benefit a rich few. That you are defending their rights is all too predictable. Does that mean we shouldn't aim to raise standards in public schools? Of course not. You're making it up! Only several messages ago, the KSP commented, "The way to improve standards and opportunity is not to allow a privileged minority shut themselves off in their own private schools. No, it is to tackle the problems that our public schools face, so that everyone benefits rather than an elite few." We would be more than happy to support increased spending on education to fulfil this purpose. |
| Date | 17:03:22, February 08, 2006 CET | From | Union of Work-Shy Elements | To | Debating the Private Schools Act |
| Message | The real reason the Socialist Party hates private schools so much is because they know they are better performing than the version offered by the state. At one fell swoop this example of government inferiority demonstrates why their entire ideology of total government control is wrong and damaging. And whatever happened to people’s right to choose? To choose whether they want to attend a private or state school. To choose whether they even want an academic education. A party can’t on the one hand deny these rights but simultaneously claim to be somehow protecting civil rights by restricting freedoms. Why? Because it’s hypocritical but unbelievably it’s still the position taken by some parties in Kundrati. OOC: I’ll be sad to see this bill go to the vote. Good debate chaps! |
| Date | 22:15:54, February 08, 2006 CET | From | Kundrati Socialist Party | To | Debating the Private Schools Act |
| Message | For the last time, you lunatics, we have openly explained why it is that private schools often have better results. We have gone into excrutiating detail, and yet you still put it down to an absurd concept of "choice", that relies on one's social status and financial situation. That is no choice. That is no meritocracy. That is elitism, plain and simple. OOC: Indeed. Jildrathi scum. :-P |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 100 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 186 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 19 |
| Random fact: When elections in a country are held, all bills in the voting phase are reset to the debate phase. |
| Random quote: "I worked at a factory owned by Germans, at coal pits owned by Frenchmen, and at a chemical plant owned by Belgians. There I discovered something about capitalists. They are all alike, whatever the nationality. All they wanted from me was the most work for the least money that kept me alive. So I became a communist." - Nikita Khrushchev |