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 4738
Details
Submitted by[?]: Alliance Party
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: September 4739
Description[?]:
| This is a major piece of legislation, regarded by the government as being on a par with its previous Health Bill. Some of these proposals are non-negotiable, so it is understandable if any opposition party votes against this Bill on the basis of one or more of those. Others relate to existing legislation to which the government intends to find an alternative, but in these instances there is more than one acceptable policy, though the Alliance Party has its preferences which it will state in its default position for each proposal. The rationale behind this Bill is as follows: It is self - funding The state already supplies free public education and to age 18 - the proposal is to lower the age to 16, which releases some funds The state currently provides additional funding to chrater schools - this will cease, releasing more funds Although the state would now maintain all forms of further education it is self-financing from student fees (less government subsidies) The level of subsidy being offered is defined in this Bill as "a certain amount" - which can be variable over time as funds become more or less available There should be no reason why any private school (including religious ones) should not be given the opportunity to exist The concern would be over the need to regulate them (which costs money in state agencies) The proposal is actually to reduce regulation (thus saving funds) The reason is that the National Curriculum will no longer be voluntary, but obligatory The contents of the National Curriculum can be varied to include only basics or be wholly prescriptive, thus effectively obtaining more or less control (ie regulation) over the schools' activities. To some extent private schools are self-regulating anyway - if parents don't like them they will not pay for their children to go there |
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:: 18
Current: 17
Proposed: 16
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Higher education institutions.
Old value:: The government does not maintain any forms of higher education.
Current: The government maintains a system of universities, vocational schools, and colleges nationwide.
Proposed: The government maintains a system of universities, vocational schools, and colleges nationwide.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The regulation of higher education.
Old value:: The government does not fund any public higher education institutions, permitting only private higher education institutions to exist.
Current: The government allows private higher education but regulates it to meet nationally set standards.
Proposed: The government allows public and private higher education institutions to coexist with self-regulation for those that are private.
Article 4
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 higher education tuition to a certain amount, the rest is covered by the individual students. This includes scholarship programs.
Proposed: The government subsidizes higher education tuition to a certain amount, the rest is covered by the individual students. This includes scholarship programs.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on political education
Old value:: The Government requires all secondary school students to receive an advanced political education.
Current: The Government requires all secondary school students to receive a basic political education.
Proposed: The Government does not require secondary school students to receive a political education, but actively encourages it.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change Pre-school education.
Old value:: The government leaves development of nurseries to the private sector.
Current: Pre-school education is private, but the government covers the schoolcosts of poor families.
Proposed: The government leaves the pre-school education policy to local governments.
Article 7
Proposal[?] to change Government funding for private schools.
Old value:: Only charter schools are given government funding.
Current: Private educational institutions receive no government funding whatsoever.
Proposed: Private educational institutions receive no government funding whatsoever.
Article 8
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 alongside private schools.
Proposed: There is a free public education system alongside private schools.
Article 9
Proposal[?] to change Singing the national anthem in schools.
Old value:: Children are made to sing the national anthem at the commencement of school each day.
Current: Children are never made to sing the national anthem.
Proposed: Children are only made to sing the national anthem on special occasions.
Article 10
Proposal[?] to change National Curriculum
Old value:: There is a National Curriculum which is advisory only and is not binding on any schools.
Current: There is a National Curriculum which all schools are obliged to follow.
Proposed: There is a National Curriculum which all schools are obliged to follow.
Article 11
Proposal[?] to change The governments stance on religious schools.
Old value:: Any religion may set up a school, but they are strictly regulated.
Current: Religious schools are not allowed.
Proposed: Any religion may set up a school, with no regulations.
Article 12
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to prayer in schools.
Old value:: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden, except in religious schools.
Current: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden.
Proposed: The government leaves this decision up to the schools themselves.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:29:55, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Social Democrat Party | To | Debating the Education Bill 4738 |
| Message | Unfortunately, many articles of this legislation fall out of line with the SDP's values. In regards to article 5, the SDP believes it's important for especially our youth to be politically educated and politically active. This requires advanced political teachings to encourage the political views of the youth to be expressed. For article 6, the SDP has already made it's view apparent that we believe that funding should be provided by the federal government to ensure that low-income members of society get pre-school education. Article 8, the SDP believes, is not adequate for changing. Regulation on private schools are necessary to make sure they teach meaningful and useful material that can be used post-secondary as well as during. For article 9 we will refer to our argument about article 8. Article 11, we believe, is not fair to the youth of our nation. Our children deserve quality and unbiased education, and not regulating something as important as prayer in schools is simply ridiculous in the view of the SDP. Under this legislation, if a school allows it, a teacher can force non-religious children to pray for a god they do not believe. This is indoctrination and we will not pretend that it is anything but. The rest of the articles in this legislation, the SDP thinks, are welcomed changes. However, the rest (especially article 11) are extremely troubling and we wish to have a dialogue with the Alliance Party regarding them. |
| Date | 18:31:25, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Social Democrat Party | To | Debating the Education Bill 4738 |
| Message | The SDP understands that loosening regulation frees up government funds, but does not believe this is the proper place to do so. We believe the cost of unfair indoctrination outweighs the benefit of less government expenditure. |
| Date | 19:14:32, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Education Bill 4738 |
| Message | The government took pains to attempt to explain the rationale behind these proposals, while also trying to avoid lengthy speeches which might not have been on topic for the concerns which the opposition parties might have. We will be pleased to give a response to each of the matters specifically raised by the SDP: 1. If many articles fall out of line with the SDP''s, then perhaps it is not going to be possible to obtain wide support for this Bill without drastic amendment, which the government is not prepared to do. If the SDP could suggest some "tweaks" to the proposals, then as stated in the Bill's description the government is happy to consider amending some articles, but not where it feels unable to compromise. 2. Article 5 - it is also important for youth to be educated in many areas - not just the basics of numeracy and literacy. The government is of the opinion that the arts, for example, provide excellent educational benefits whether a pupil tends towards arts or the sciences, but we would expect to legislate that every pupil must be given an advanced level of education in them. There is in any case scope to provide a certain level of political awareness education in the National Curriculum to impose a varying amount of this knowledge and understanding to our youth. 3. Article 6 - The government would actually like to offer free education for all up to from pre-school level right up to and including further education. As with the Health Bill, however, until the financial framework is in place this aim must be approached in a step-by-step fashion. We are not prepared to raised taxation levels to fund Utopia in one step. Devolving (as a first, possible temporary measure) allows any State that is managed astutely to implement a more publicly funded solution. 4. Articles 8 and 9 - We would reiterate that the phrasing of the policies relating to regulation appear on the surface to let private organisations do exactly what they want without any regard to the standards expected of them, but that we have tried to redress that balance. Parents will vote with their feet and refuse to pay for private education which doesn't produce the goods,and we will be insisting on all schools following the National Curriculum. The government of the day can make that curriculum as stringent as they wish - ultimately effectively instructing the schools exactly what to teach in every lesson if parties such as the SDP insist upon such levels of regulation. 5. School prayers are different to singing the National Anthem - the current law expects every child to sing the latter every day without exception - which this Bill will be changing. School prayers are not being encouraged, just not being prohibited. Parents can have their say in Parent/Teacher associations, and there would be no problem in children being able to be excluded from any prayers in the same way that the current laws allow children to be withdrawn from sex education lessons - which the government has no intention of changing. No doubt there will be follow-up comments, and probably further observations and assertions from other opposition parties, but parties are urged to be constructive. No amount of sabre ratting will result in the government withdrawing the Bill, so the emphasis needs to be on suggesting amendments which the government will then state whether it is prepared to accept or not. And even then, there is little point in amending anything if the result is still a No vote for the Bill as a whole. |
| Date | 20:06:00, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Social Democrat Party | To | Debating the Education Bill 4738 |
| Message | The SDP apologizes for its lack of constructive proposals and will attempt to amend that now. In regards to article 5, the SDP is convinced of the Alliance Party's position and will support this article. For article 6, the SDP is curious of the timeline of when the Alliance Party believes that they will implement their plan for free education for pre-school. We are curious as to if they plan to implement these reforms after the next election. Regarding article 8 and 9, no where did we ever mention we wanted to regulate what schools teach each lesson. We wish for quality and meaningful education, and we believe that much regulation is common sense. If the Alliance Party wishes for that regulation to be enforced through a National Curriculum, so be it. However, the SDP requests that the National Curriculum maintains that, even in private schools, useful and comprehensive education (including workforce, financial literacy, comprehensive sex-ed) is included to ensure the success of students post-secondary. Regarding article 11, we understand the Alliance Party's position on the proposal but wanted to be certain that there would be the ability for students to opt-out of a school prayer federally-wide. The SDP appreciates the response and clarification on a proposal this important. Many of the concerns we held about this bill have been elevated. |
| Date | 20:47:31, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Education Bill 4738 |
| Message | The government thanks the SDP for its appreciation of some of the arguments being presented to parliament in defense of this Bill. There need be no curiosity surrounded the time-scale for free pre-school education - it will not be within the lifetime of this session of parliament. There are many areas which the government would like to see addressed - a free public health service and free further education would unfortunately rank higher on the list of priorities than pre-school education. We can promise that it will be highly likely that free pre-school education would be proposed after the next election. But whether that proposal is passed or not depends, of course, upon the outcome of that election. That is why the government is taking the two-fold course it is in introducing legislation like this - a. to try to canvas opinions which might indicate that the Alliance policies would be immediately overturned by another government, and b. is attempting to make free pre-school education possible where local governments can operate with sufficient fiscal responsibility to afford it. As to regulation, the government would be prepared to use the National Curriculum as a highly stringent tool for regulating schools should they not respond to their freedom responsibly. It was mentioned in the debate because other parties should be able to see that adding to or subtracting content from the National Curriculum can take up as much of the school's timetable as it elects to do so. We do accept that regulation can mean something other than that, but trust that the difference is not sufficient for the SDP to withhold its support for the Bill as a whole. Finally, we can assure parliament that, as far as the Alliance Party is concerned, there will be an opt-out from prayers for any pupil federally-wide. It is not the government's intention, and far from its wish, for religious activity of any sort to be imposed upon children (or for that matter adults). However, the Alliance is not a prohibitive party and as long as parents are happy with the policies of the school to which they send their children then we would have no further concerns on the matter. |
| Date | 22:06:53, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Social Democrat Party | To | Debating the Education Bill 4738 |
| Message | The SDP appreciates the response from the Alliance Party. The SDP also understands that free public health and free further education are the top priorities for the government. The clarification was necessary in regards to the National Curriculum and the allowance of opting-out of in-school prayers. Those were the main concerns of the SDP, and now we wish to support this bill and it's passing. However, I would like to ask the CNP for their view on this bill and their education policy in general. I speak for the Alliance Party as well, assuming they would like their view on it as well. |
| Date | 12:21:55, April 09, 2020 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Education Bill 4738 |
| Message | Although we agree with some of he proposals laid out in this bill, we simply cannot support the deregulation of religious schools. The potential for all kinds of problems that this could create is quite profound, including radicalisation of students or other cognitive manipulation may be dangerous and is not something we can therefore advocate. |
| Date | 13:20:54, April 09, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Education Bill 4738 |
| Message | The government would be prepared to change the article relating to religious schools to allow only recognised religions to open them. Any religion found to be teaching radicalism or suspected of doing so could be designated by the government of the day as "not recognised". a. Would this satisfy the CNP's objection? b. Would this change the SDP's support for the Bill? |
| Date | 18:15:56, April 09, 2020 CET | From | Social Democrat Party | To | Debating the Education Bill 4738 |
| Message | This proposal would not change our support of the bill. The SDP is happy to find a compromise that encompasses all parties on an issue as important as education. |
| Date | 19:48:44, April 10, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the Education Bill 4738 |
| Message | When the government agenda for the remainder of the parliamentary session was presented over a year ago, it was stated that this Education Bill would be produced in the new year and remain open for debate for 6-9 months. Over 12 months have elapsed since the Bill was introduced, so the government is confident that all parties have had ample time to contribute to the debate and to raise issues of concern which might result in the Alliance modifying the proposals where it felt able to do so to accommodate various viewpoints. The government thanks the SDP for what appears to be its support for the Bill, having discussed some of the issues for concern which that party raised. Unfortunately, the CNP offered one contribution to the debate - consisting of two sentences. The government attempted to request the CNP reaction to a possible modification to the Bill, but no further discussion has been forthcoming from them. Having attempted to obtain full agreement on this Bill in advance, the Alliance can only now put it to the vote and observe the votes, as the government needs to press on to complete its program of planned legislation. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 307 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 53 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When your party holds the foreign affairs department, you can create new treaties. However, before writing anything new, it is a good idea to search for existing treaties which already accomplish what you desire. |
| Random quote: "It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways." - Buddha |