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 Bill of 4209
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Party
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: July 4212
Description[?]:
| . |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Charter school policy (free, privately run, publicly funded schools).
Old value:: Charter schools must be non-profit and have a specific focus.
Current: Charter schools must be non-profit and have a specific focus.
Proposed: Charter school funding, regulation, and development is left up to local governments.
Article 2
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:: 18
Current: 18
Proposed: 16
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Higher education institutions.
Old value:: The government maintains a system of universities, vocational schools, and colleges nationwide.
Current: The government maintains a system of universities, vocational schools, and colleges nationwide.
Proposed: The government leaves the development and funding of all higher education institutions up to local governments.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Higher education tuition policy.
Old value:: The government fully subsidizes tuition.
Current: The government subsidizes higher education tuition to a certain amount, the rest is covered by the individual students. This includes scholarship programs.
Proposed: The government subsidizes tuition only for students from families classified as low-income or poor.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change National Curriculum
Old value:: There is a National Curriculum which all government schools are obliged to follow; non-government schools are partially exempt.
Current: There is a National Curriculum which all schools are obliged to follow.
Proposed: There is a National Curriculum which is advisory only and is not binding on any schools.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:14:41, May 13, 2017 CET | From |  Demokratische Allianz | To | Debating the Education Bill of 4209 |
| Message | Paula Brahms, Prime Minister: This Bill would irreparably damage the quality of our federal education system. The AIP wish to hamper education outcomes by lowering the age of compulsory education, removing existing subsidies for the middle class, and weakening the national curriculum. Not only this, but it seeks to move the responsibility for higher education from the federal government to the states. This would result in a fractured system under which each state would hold a different quality and expectation in educational outcomes. This would not improve the system but break it. At a time where the AIP have just voted against tax cuts for the middle class they now wish to impose higher education costs on them as well? Unbelievable! We will not stand idly by while the AIP continue their attempts to hijack the government's agenda and destroy this country. You say, Mr Reece, that a populist stands by the people? Well shame on you because this Bill does anything but stand up for the good people of this great nation. |
| Date | 20:19:38, May 13, 2017 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Education Bill of 4209 |
| Message | We want to lower the age of compulsory education to give the people a choice. The education system is not suited to all, and so we think it is necessary to allow people to leave and go out into the real world. We are giving people a greater choice over their future. The national curriculum is a barrier to education outcomes. It is schools themselves that should set their curriculum, as when teachers are given more freedom to teach what they think is best for their students, we see better results. We absolutely stand by removing subsidies for those that can afford it! Why should the taxpayer pay for tuition fees? Why should the working class, low-income earner have to pay for the tuition fees of richer people who can afford to pay it themselves? We will continue to subsidise higher education for those that need those subsidies. By giving more power to local governments, we are giving more power to the people those local governments serve. We have proposed our own tax cuts that will help all Alorians, including the middle-class. It is the DA that is attempting to destroy this country, and the people realised this by voting for a new president! This bill is for the people, not the rich elites like yourself! Ellis Reece, AIP Leader |
| Date | 14:05:54, May 15, 2017 CET | From | Progressive Liberal Party | To | Debating the Education Bill of 4209 |
| Message | "This bill should have been named "Anti-Education Bill" instead of "Education Bill". There is no sense in AIP Leader's arguments, and that just goes to show how dangerous populism can get: hiding one's intentions under sweet and pleasing but false words, and here's why. Mr. Reece attacked the national curriculum, considering it a barrier to education outcomes, invoking that nullifying the national curriculum would give more freedom to teachers so that they can teach what's best for their students. Well, if Mr. Reece was actually in touch with the school education system in Aloria, he would have known some of the most reasons that students, especially in schools with lower results, invoke for their results: "our teacher never thought us that" , "I haven't heard off anything like that" and further more. What Mr. Reece fails to realise is that the National Curriculum has never restricted what a teacher can teach in their classrooms, the NC works as a set of guidelines if I may for the teacher and provides indications about what lessons should be thought specifically. The NC never tells a teacher how to teach their classes, what other information should they give to their children, the way they should evaluate their students and when should they do so. Removing the NC will not bring what Mr. Reece hopes for, but only make things worse. Then, what Mr. Reece fails to see is the truly purpose of this existing legislation and how important this is for Aloria overall. It is a simple but wonderful idea: if you are a student that studies in Aloria, regardless of wealth, you have the RIGHT to enjoy the same quality education as any other student. When he says that a child in a wealthy family can afford paying for higher studies, he is right, but by subsidising the cost for his studies it certainly does not mean that he no longer does so: his family pays perhaps higher taxes than they would have had if the tuitions were not subsidised, but this way a poorer family has the same power to send their children to university as a wealthier family. As polls and studies have shown, a family would rather pay 2% more of their income and let their children to be entitled to higher studies than not do so and be forced to pay for the college tax themselves or access some government program for the poor. Most importantly, what Mr. Reece fails to see is what a good measure this has been for Aloria, the way it promotes the overall cultural growth of our society. The more we invest in our children, the more we invest in our future. In front of you all, I can whole-heartedly declare that it was the Progressive Liberal Party that transformed Aloria in the way it is now and it was us that brought this incredible progress to this nation (*some senators protesting sounds in the background*). And I advise the gentlemen disliking this fact that they review the current active legislation:The National Strategy for Progressive Development of Education which paved the way for the later Advancement Strategy Act proposed under the first Prime-Minister from PLP, Manfred Ostermeier. These radical changes were a goal that seemed almost impossible to achieve, but tirelessly working for it allowed us and our allies at the time to do the best for this nation, as we've always tried to. We believe that anyone has the right to a proper healthcare and education system, and we will do whatever in our power to protect the named ideas!" Margaret Gedrych, Interim President of PLP |
| Date | 18:40:47, May 15, 2017 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Education Bill of 4209 |
| Message | The reason students are failing and not getting the most out of our education system is we tell them how important it is to follow discipline, following the NC, and you will get a good grade. The truth is this regimented system of teaching today's students makes them disengaged, unhappy and gives them a feeling they are learning pointless concepts and idea that they will never use again. We also tell them how important it is to stay in school until they are 18. We don't take into account how some people are better suited to being out in a workplace, than in a school. The AIP is the only party trying to end this madness! The PLP is trying to claim students from poorer families would not be able to go to university if we didn't subsidise the costs for all. I don't know if they've realised that we are still planning to subsidise the costs for those families. The PLP ruined our education system, hurting the ordinary people. We are on the side of ordinary people, and we will fix the education system for them. The PLP says populism is dangerous; what is dangerous about standing up for the ordinary people? If you truly think that this dangerous, then it proves you are part of the elite in this country! Ellis Reece, AIP Leader |
| Date | 20:40:04, May 16, 2017 CET | From | Progressive Liberal Party | To | Debating the Education Bill of 4209 |
| Message | Margaret Gedrych replies to Ellis Reece: "Ladies and gentlemen, I guess that Mr. Reece's last speech here in the Senate floor just confirmed my points and ideas: indeed, Mr. Reece fails to see the purpose of the current education laws but he would see anything that suits him best enough to fill up a court process! Mr. Reece, here and now I want to ensure you that my speech was in full coordonance with the bill the AIP has proposed, and when I've presented my arguments I started from the idea that the tuition would be subsidised for the poorest. Even though I know you may not believe me, you could go and watch the recording as many times you want for my words spoken there can't change, as I even stated the existence of a "government program" that the poor should access in order to send their children to school, and that's exactly what this bill proposes. There, I explained why the current system is much better in our views and why the bill should be clearly rejected. You have the tapes, but something makes me think you'll have a hard time tonight analyzing and reanalyzing them. Now, leaving aside all the unjustful and blatant accusations, Mr. Reece, you've challenged my statements about populism, again, by understanding all you wished but nothing that I said. Now perhaps you will see what I mean: since you've been President of Aloria for two consecutive terms, do you know a very easy way for a politician to become President? By hiding their own intentions under populist stances that some may or may not believe, and promoting those populist stances with a fierce and sometimes terrifying charisma setting the politician in a good light. I suggest you do some introspective linked to my words here today, perhaps analyzing your terms as President. In the end, you say that you believe in populism, that you believe in standing up for the ordinary people, which is a noble cause if that was to be the true meaning behind populism. But do you know what me and the Progressive Liberal Party believes in? We believe in standing up for the ordinary people as well as making them able to stand up for themselves, and that's the thing that differentiate us!" As Margaret Gedrych finishes her speech, claps and applauses from PLP Senators resound altogether with "boos" and hurls from other senators. |
| Date | 20:52:57, May 16, 2017 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Education Bill of 4209 |
| Message | Margaret Gedrych, it is clear what you said. It is even making front-page news (http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=250&start=260#p114950). The article even says that you claimed 'the bill would cancel tuition subsidies only for poor families'. This bill does the opposite. It scraps tutiion subsidies for the rich, while the poor will continue to get their tuition fees subsidised. The PLP don't believe in standing up for ordinary people. If they did they would have voted for this bill. If they did they wouldn't have proposed their bill that brings changes to child benefits. You want to guarantee child benefits even to the richest. It is further proof that you and your party are elitists! Ellis Reece, AIP Leader |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 113 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 432 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: It is forbidden to impersonate a player or Moderator. |
| Random quote: "The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us, but we don't ask for their love, only for their fear." - Heinrich Himmler |