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: Public Education
Details
Submitted by[?]: Jacobin Society
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: January 2192
Description[?]:
| . |
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: Education is private, but the government subsidises the cost of it for everyone
Proposed: There is a free public education system alongside private schools.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:18:24, February 24, 2006 CET | From | Roman Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Education |
| Message | Un-needed budget strain. Privatization is better and can offer more in the way of curriculum when they only have to fund themselves and not have the government split a budget among all the schools in Zardugal. And don't complain about the poor not being able to go because their children get vouchers. |
| Date | 18:12:36, February 24, 2006 CET | From | Jacobin Society | To | Debating the Public Education |
| Message | It doesn't need to be a budget strain. Certaintly, the government would split a budget among all the schools, but at the same time, a private school is still a business trying to make a profit. Now, it may not always be the case that profit interferes with the curriculum, but that prospect is certainly there. Now, a response to that maybe to regulate private schooling, but if we're going to do that, why not just have a public school system? In addition, private schools tend to have a one-track curriculum. A public school would offer a more nuetral setting away from private interests. |
| Date | 18:13:36, February 24, 2006 CET | From | Jacobin Society | To | Debating the Public Education |
| Message | Besides, if you're going to have a voucher system for poor children, the government would have to, in turn, pay private schools for the vouchers. And if we're going to do that, then why not have a public system? |
| Date | 00:19:42, February 26, 2006 CET | From | Roman Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Education |
| Message | Because the vouchers wouldn't go to all families, only those that can't pay, as opposed to where the government has to pay for every child. |
| Date | 02:02:28, February 26, 2006 CET | From | New Daio Party | To | Debating the Public Education |
| Message | The current way of things is that 'disadvantaged' is concidered households making <z30,000 a year. The advantage to the current system is that if the government finds that a particular school is not performing to standards, we can de-issue vouchers for that school, essentially firing them. If schools are nationalized, we have no such option. Thus it is on the schools to do their job properly, because if the government won't trust a school with the youth of a nation, I highly doubt anyone paying for the school themself will either. It is win-win. |
| Date | 02:22:37, February 26, 2006 CET | From | Jacobin Society | To | Debating the Public Education |
| Message | No, it is not win-win. The problem is vouchers themselves. We realize that vouchers do not go to every family. Tax payers are then paying for the poor to go to school in addition to paying for their own children. Don't bring up pharmaceuticals, because we have the same issue there. If tax dollars are going to support the poor, then all should be included into a public system. Also, de-issue vouchers doesn't solve anything. There is something to be said for public schools. The government may de-issue vouchers, but that does not prevent children from attending. Essentially, the governement does not "essentially fire" the school. If schools are nationalized, we have the option of removing problem teachers and setting standards. |
| Date | 13:23:02, February 26, 2006 CET | From | New Daio Party | To | Debating the Public Education |
| Message | What planet are you living on? The moment a teacher recieves tenure, they cannot be fired. If a nationalized school is crap, we can't fire everyone there for failing to do their jobs. Hell, the voucher-benefit is out of date no-thank-you to social security, unemployment benefits, child benefits and high minimum wage acts raising the poverty line over z15,000 in far less than a decade. The voucher benefit was designed for a country where the poverty-line was z5,000 a year. And further, if these things would be done away with, the poverty line would drop. Nationally that line is z21,000! This is the highest level in the HISTORY of the nation. You don't have to pull people above water to keep them from drowning, especially when you can drain the water they're drowning in. This will do nothing more than lower the quality of the education provided in our nation, and remove freedoms from citizens that they have enjoyed for half a century and more. It will also worsen our financial troubles. It is incorrigible that you would propose this, and disheartening in the utomost that you think that any nationalized agency can do a better job for less money than the private sector, which historically, it does not. A vote for this bill is a vote in favor for a weaker education for the youth of this nation. Plain and simple. |
| Date | 16:49:39, February 26, 2006 CET | From | Jacobin Society | To | Debating the Public Education |
| Message | Why are you asking me such a childish and immature question? Skip the ridicule and get right to the debate. What do you mean they can't be fired? Also, why would we want to fire an entire school? You are painting everything with such a broad brush. I agree with you that some of those things need to go to lower the poverty line (ie. child & unemployment benefits, lower minimum wage) but to destroy the whole house to fix a flood in the basement is insane. Public schools do not have to suffer, not if they are properly funded and managed, which may become impossible because you seem to be in a panic to dismantle everything that smacks of government. In addition, I am not asking to remove private schools. It says right in the proposal public schools stand next to private ones, so, in a way, by including a new public system, I am offering more choice. The private sector has also, historically, been independent and often contrary to the goals of the government. I'm not saying this is a fact, I'm saying historically. |
| Date | 00:36:45, February 27, 2006 CET | From | Bachelor Party | To | Debating the Public Education |
| Message | We recognize that the best system is one in which the customer has unrestricted freedom to choose a service provider. There is no escaping that this is a service-industry market, and the customer is the student, or the student's parent. Parents acting in their best interest, and the best interest of their child, will choose the best educational opportunity available to them. There is also no escaping that people of means will provide better educational opportunities then those of little means, under any system. We oppose a public school system for several reasons, the one above being among them. We believe that government should be in the business of governing, not educating. Government does a remarkably poor job of educationg the public. While it would not be our firct choice, we can support the present voucher system. The key to the issue for us is that the parents and students have autonomy to make their own educational decisions. Under such a system, all schools are more directly motivated to provide a high quality of education. |
| Date | 00:39:53, February 27, 2006 CET | From | New Daio Party | To | Debating the Public Education |
| Message | What do I mean they can't be fired? I can't be any more clear. A teacher with tenure is guaranteed their job until they quit or die and cannot be fired. There are schools (in the US) that consistantly perform horribly. And there's nothing that can be done, realistically, because of the way things are. And you're right, I want to remove anything that smacks of government BECAUSE WE'RE ANARCHISTS! You may not be removing private schools but you're forcing kids to go to public ones by removing vouchers. You are removing choice as now areas will be assigned their public school and private schools will become full-pay. Private schools which have been educating our youth for quite some time. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 126 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 152 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Dorvik is a nation based on Germanic and old Prussian cultures, it is located on the far north of Artania, making it an almost arctic nation. |
| Random quote: "Public schools are government-established, politician- and bureaucrat-controlled, fully politicized, taxpayer-supported, authoritarian socialist institutions. In fact, the public-school system is one of the purest examples of socialism existing in America." - Thomas L. Johnson |