Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: January 5461
Next month in: 01:44:08
Server time: 18:15:51, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (4): hexaus18 | HopesFor | Icetead | SocDemDundorfian | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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 Choice Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Adam Smith 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: July 2073

Description[?]:

With respect to the 26 years of experimental government control of the educational standards of our nation we find that this experiment has failed our people. There are too few school leavers equipped with the knowledge and skills required to succeed in today's complex and rapidly changing world. This can be directly attributable to the overly bureaucratic and inefficient scheme of government approval of school curricula, which left children studying Latin whilst their required knowledge of VR interface design was being debated in some back office of the department of education.

It is hereby proposed to strip away this dead weight of cumbersome administrative methodology from our educational system. This will benefit our nation in two ways.

Firstly it will allow our schools to teach what is really required by the employers and entrepreneurs of our nation. Secondly it will remove the burden of meaningless and unnecessary revision and regulation of private schools from our tax payers.

To allow our state schools to function with such dynamic freedom we also require that these become private institutions. Those families suffering from economic hardships due to the misguided educational policy of the last quarter century, shall be provided with vouchers so as not to carry the harm already done on into future generations.

We call upon all members of this government to support this movement toward freeing our people from the bureaucratic nightmare that has been previously imposed upon them.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date03:12:31, June 23, 2005 CET
FromChorus of Amyst
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageThis has the support of the Council.

Date04:09:35, June 23, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageThe Adam Smith Party does a great injustice to our high school graduates, who are the products of some of the best education in the world. They are certainly taught technical skills and critical thinking. We have searched far and wide and found only a handful of schools in Lodamun that waste their time with Latin. Most of them are private schools.

If there are problems with the current system, then why move straight from the present system to the abolition of public schools? Why not consider a compromise position in which both private and public schools are able to function side by side? Compromise has been possible on many issues in the past, and we hope that compromise will be possible in this case.

Date04:13:41, June 23, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageNo.

Date05:27:13, June 23, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageIn reply to the CFC Greens. We find that their research appears to have been rather narrowly focussed. We would draw attention to the continued obsession for Latin as reflected in our outdated National motto and the request that a proposed anthem should be in Latin as well.

However on to the reason for cutting the state schools out of the system altogether. The purpose of this bill is to provide choice in education. This means choice for all. If we wer to retain state schools to provide education for the low income groups, this would be discriminatory against those groups as it would deny them any freedom of choice in the style and nature of education being received by their children. They would be condemned to having to attend the state school in their area regardless of the appropriateness of the sylabus taught by that institution. Does this sufficiently answer your doubts?

Date05:59:40, June 23, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
Message((It was a joke about the Latin anthem, my friend. And anyone who's been around for a while can tell you i'm no fan of the motto, having voted against it in the first place and tried to change it more than once.))

Date06:39:08, June 23, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
Message((Fair enough, but it gave me the opening, I shall not harp on about Latin in general then.))

Date21:06:01, June 23, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageI'd like to know just how 'disadvantaged' you'd have to be to qualify for vouchers.

Date21:14:24, June 23, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageAs our actual economy is not detailed, and we do not even have currency units, it is difficult to answer the CNT question in any way.
Those that can not afford education otherwise, we suppose to be the answer. They would not be provided to allow a family extensive cruising holidays, or a third luxury car, and they would be provided if the family could not buy shoes for their children. Between these extremes is a matter of negotiation.

Date05:03:09, June 24, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
Message"it will allow our schools to teach what is really required by the employers and entrepreneurs of our nation."

Funny. And here was I thinking that schools serve a greater purpose than to equip the future generation to find jobs.

"Those families suffering from economic hardships due to the misguided educational policy of the last quarter century, shall be provided with vouchers so as not to carry the harm already done on into future generations."

Laughable. A portion of Lodamunian families suffer from economic hardships becausem laissez-faire capitalist parties like yours have been in control for years, not because of our 'misguided' education policies.

Date14:47:52, June 24, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageTwo points for the honourable r otherwise members from the CNT/AFL to bear in mind.

Schools serve to educate our children, to equip them to deal with life in our difficult and complex world. This includes preparing them for the job market. At no time was it intimated that they do not have other roles in addition to this, such as teaching childrent to be critical of political propoganda, of encouraging self sufficiency both in thpought and in action,. However there is a requirement that amongst these other activities the school does prepare the pupil for life as a self sufficient adult. To deny this to the child, as has been done over the last quarter century, is to create a culture of dependency and to eliminate any possible sense of satisfaction with life that the person may have obtained. Whilst we recognise the other functions of education, we, unlike yourselves, also recognise that there is a pragmatic aspect to education that needs to be present.

The second point is that we find it extremely depressing that yourselves can find the economic hardship of some of our families 'laughable". The attribution of the causes of this hardship to laissez faire economics is unsustainable as only in the last few years has any real movement toward laissez faire economic policies become possible. The hardfship is caused due to the ill preparation provided by our education system, the failure of our schols to prepare individuals for the realities of life and by the excessive burden placed on our economy by the overstuffed government.

We propose a system that clearly corrects an error of judgement and the honorable gentleman laugh at the existing misfortune of our people. I trust that this will not be forgotten in 2074

Date16:51:16, June 24, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
Message((As always, in-character rhetoric not to be taken personally))

Public schools have a dual mandate: to teach critical skills, and to encourage critical thinking. In this way, they have helped create engaged citizenship, an informed populace, and a more skilled workforce. Our public schools may not be perfect, but they have consistent levels of excellence. The speaker for the Adam Smith Party is scare-mongering, attacking one of the pillars of our country, and trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

Public schools are not perfect. For those who do not wish to attend them, there are private school and home-schooling options. We recognize that the electorate has opted for more conservative parties this time, and would be prepared to compromise by removing government supervision from private schools.

However, the forced abolition of our public school system, which has existed for decades, is a reactionary and vindictive measure. There are few more egregious examples of ideologically-driven authoritarian thinking than the compulsory closure of public schools, as proposed in this bill. What have the public schools done to harm anyone, that they must now be closed down, without appeal and without good reason? When the parties of the left held a majority, we made no effort to close private schools, becuase we believed in freedom of educaitonal choice. Are the axe-wielders of the Adam Smith Party so fixed in their beliefs that they will not even allow freedom of educational choice, which includes the freedom to choose public schools -- schools attended, at the moment, by people of all economic backgrounds, rich and poor alike.

Once again, we appeal for clear thinking. Choose a middle path, and a consensus may be possible. Continue down this road of butchering public education, and we shall fight you with every parliamentary tool remaining to us.

Date17:08:28, June 24, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
Message((IC comments are never taken personally))

The accusations of this being a reactionary and vindictive measure made by our colleagues on the opposite benches are wrong on both counts.

To be reactionary is to argue for and support the status quo. Thjis bill is designed to thorughly overhall the educational system, draggfing it into the 21st century from the dark depths of the late 20th century model. The term reactionary is, in our humble opinion, misused here.

As to vindictiveness, we also deny any such charge. We are not proposing that public schools be closed, we ar simply removing the government intervention and control on these and at the same time removing the market distortions implicit in providing selective funding. The total funding for education will only be slightly reduced as we are providing vouchers. If the ex public schools are as good as they are claimed to be, then they will have no problem in being cut free of the government chains. It is up to our people to decide which schools they wish their children to attend. This proposal grants far more freedom of choice to the low income membewrs of our society than retaining government control on some institutions and then requiring that those without the means to pay for education for their offspring attend these few limited institutions.

Please understand gentlemen, that no school is being closed down. All that is happening is that the funding decisions for schols are being transferred from the hands of the central bureaucracy to the hands of the customers of the schools. If one school or another does not offer a good enough service to survive under these conditions, then it should not have survived under any other set of conditions either.

This is a middle path, and a path that will offer far wider choice in education than is currently available. It will also offer better opportunities for our professional educators as there will be a competitive rather than artificial market for their services, with good, effective teachers being in demand and poor lazy innefectual teachers no longer being protected.

Date17:54:49, June 24, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
Message"The second point is that we find it extremely depressing that yourselves can find the economic hardship of some of our families 'laughable". The attribution of the causes of this hardship to laissez faire economics is unsustainable as only in the last few years has any real movement toward laissez faire economic policies become possible."

We do not find the economic plight of certain sections of Lodamunian society laughable, we find the ridiculous comments of the Adam Smith Party laughable. The Amystian Council has been in power since this nation was founded, barring two terms of MLP Presidency. The Council has almost exclusively held the economic affairs portfolio of the cabinet, they have been propagating laissez-faire capitalism for a good 40 years.

Date17:57:13, June 24, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageIf they had been propogating Laissez-Faire capitalism all the time, then there would have been no state schools, no support or welfare system at all. The evidence simply does not support the claims of the honorouble speaker for the CNT/AFL

Date03:03:51, June 25, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageThe attempt is not to move us into the 21st century, but back to the 19th. And if it will not even save money, then it is completely pointless. Any member of parliament who can describe students and their parents as "the customers of schools" is clearly blinded by their own dollar-driven ideology. It is a shame that the Adam Smith Party is not disposed to take up the offer of compromise on this issue.

Date18:00:16, June 25, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
Message((Have you read Jennifer Government? Do we really need Mattel schools?))

Date18:50:44, June 25, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
Message((@CNT As it happens Jennifer Government has only just been published here, so no I have not read it. Remember we do not all live in the first world. So explain your Mattel schools comment please))

The 19th century did not provide vouchers for the underpriveleged, nor was there an awareness of the need for variety and critical discussion in education. So we treat the comment in respect of this from the loyal opposition with the contempt it deserves.

What would the honorable gentleman prefer to describe the parents and students attending our educational institutions as, iof not customers. It would appear that the term slaves would fit their vision of education better, as they are required to be educ\ted, but are not to be allowed a choice as to by whom or where. It is to be either home schooling at the cost of one parent not being able to contribute financially, or a state school if they can not afford a private one. Oh the very rich will have options under their scheme but, as was the case in the 19th century, only the very rich would have. The honest hard working man wikll be required to send his child to a state run school with no option as to the curriculum or value system to which he wishes to expose his child.

The offer of compromise is an offer to remove choice. As such it is no compromise, it is state tyrrany in disguise. If the honorable gentleman can suggest a compromise that provides as much freedom of choice then this would be considered. But no compromise can be made on the principle of the right of the individual to chose the style and nature of education that they want for their, not our, children.

Date19:10:06, June 25, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageThe suggested compromise is: both public and private schools exist. Public schools will continue to have the right to make their own decisions on matters such as sexual education and school prayer, subject to government regulation only to the extent that public school curricula must teach adequate skills. Parents will be free to select any public school, or to send their children to private schools which will not be regulated, or home-school if they prefer.

And i ain't no gentleman.

Sister Maria da Cruz, OBVM
CCF-Greens education spokesperson

Date19:27:20, June 25, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageFirstly we wish to apologise for the confusion concerning the gender of the honorable member. No insult was intended we assure you good lady.

The idea that parents would be free to choose any public school, whilst very nice, is impractical. Those sending their children to public schgool will, in general be those from the lower income brackets and as such will be restricted to thos schools that ar physically close to their residence. It is not possible to provide a range of public schools in one small area, but intelligent competing private schools would include transport arrangements to attract customers.

Is the suggestion that the government should also provide transport arrangements so that the lower income group would have a real choice of public schools. Would the government also make the commitment to close schools that were not in demand?

Then we move on to the point about curriculum regulation. This is totally unnaceptable to us. The root cause of proposing this bill is to remove the government regulation and interference in the material that is taught. It is unnecessary, expensive and draconian. If a school does not teach apropriate material it will not attract students. Nothing more than that is needed. The regulation of school curricula is not acceptable whether it be for private or for public schools. This principle implies that public schools are not really a viable option as the uncontrolled spending of public money is not something that any party would agree to.

So unless the honorable lady can suggest a means by which we could fund schools without regulating their curricula that woks better than the proposed voucher system, we will remain with our original proposal.

Date21:28:43, June 25, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageThen the purpose of the bill is to reduce us all to individualized, atomized, "consumers" of the "education product." No, this is unacceptable. We have gone as far as we can in compromise. We only hope that the majority in parliament will reject this Thatcherist attempt to destroy the entire concept of "society."

And i ain't no lady. I work for a living.

Sister Maria da Cruz

Date21:37:43, June 25, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageDoes the honorable Mrs. recognise then that the individual is the element that constitutes our society. The society has no existence above and beyond the desires and intentions of those individuals that make up our nation. The myth of the society as an agent in and of itself has been perpetrated for far to long in our culture. It is time that we deconstructed this false ideology and recognised that politics is about providing the conditions of life for real individual people, not for some chimerical ephemeral construct that only exists in the minds of sociologists and socialists alike.

Who is that goes to school. It is children, individual children. It is not society, and abstract concept. For whom then should our educational system be tailored? Individuals.

We have no desire to try and 'socialise' these individuals into bland undifferentiated units of society. We prefer to have a vibrant and vital mixture of many different individuals of whom the cumulative resultant of their actions constitutes a real society based on their beliefs and desires, not an artificial society with the goals being imposed by the politicians.

Date05:27:32, June 27, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageSociety as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Date06:00:20, June 27, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageWe disagree. Society as a whole cannot exist without its parts.
We cannot concieve of the purpose for which some would deny a fair choice to all of our citizens. Even if our schools are good now, there is no reason to believe that they should not be permitted to improve.

((Our party's speaker then made a few...unscheduled remarks...))
"And I am shocked and appaled at the latin comment near the beginning of this debate. I took several years of latin in high school, and I can go on for a long time of how it has helped my critical thinking and verbal skills, as well as history. While I would not go so far as to require latin, just the fact that other politicians wish to deny our students this choice is infuriating."
We are also suprised at the use of the dollar as an insult. We would mention that we consider such a remark to be a compliment.

This debate isnt moving. Mostly I have seen is pointless antagonism from the opposition to this bill. We ask for a move to vote.

Date16:32:15, June 27, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
Message((In an aside to the speaker of TiC))

We just selected latin as an example due to the fact that many citizens can not see the benefit of studying it. Let it be optional is all we are requiring. It will help select the bright ones out there.

Date16:33:13, June 27, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageGiven that the opposition is reduced to offering unfounded platitudes in response to our arguments, we shall move this bill to vote.

Date17:00:26, June 27, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageThe proposal on religion in schools deserves a separate bill, and a debate on its own merits. Too late now, however. Hopefully this bill will be rejected and a new one addressing the issue of religions in schools introduced.

Date18:23:43, June 27, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageAs a great many private schools are religious, we feel that the two issues are linked as proposed.
ASP, the reference was to the first post of the CCF greens. The proposal was less harsh

Date18:48:20, June 27, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageReligious schools are simply one of the forms of private school. If we are to deregulate one form of private education it would be unreasonably biased to regulate other forms. We personally would rather that religion was kept out of schools, but we feel more strongly that the choice should be made by the people and not by us.

Date00:39:58, June 28, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageWhy, for instance, is it up to the state to decide which religions are "recognized"?

Date00:54:14, June 28, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageThe intent here is obviously to avoid cult schools and the like.
If this is your reason for dissent, then this proposal represents a step in the right direction in that regard.

Date01:27:57, June 28, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageA recognised religion has a charity status, and as such they would be expected to offer some bursaries or other means of subsidising education but in return will be tax free institutions with all the benefits of having a charity status. Non recognised religions may set up schools, but these will not be recognised by the state as religious charitable organisations, and as such will be taxed in the same way as any secular school will be. If they are non profit making, then they pay no tax.

Date02:11:15, June 28, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageThe reasons for our "dissent" have been explained at length already, and do not relate to the separate issue of religious schools. Possibly we will agree with the position of the Adam Smith is Coming alliance on religious schools, but the matter requires more discussion.

Date17:15:19, June 28, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageWe apologize if the use of "dissent" disturbed you.

This party does not fully understand however, why the CCFGreens would support all religious schools, but not if the religions had to be recognized.
As stated before, the mere existence of (recognized) religious schools is far better than no private schools being allowed to stress a particular religion.
It can hardly be believed that schooling can be private, and individual schools allowed to compete freely, if the religious aspect is ignored. As many parents place a high value on religion and do choose to send their children to public schools that choose to allow prayer, it makes sense to allow these families a choice as to what kind of an institution will be educating their child: religious or secular.
The fact is, if no significant part of the electorate wants religious schools to exist, with the voucher system allowing school choice, then religious schools will not be able to survive as a business.
If the CCF-Greens, or others, wish to satisfy the electorate, let them have the final say about religious schools. They may like them, but the may not-in either case, Article 1 of the proposal will ensure that they have a choice between a large number of religious and secular schools.

Date18:23:01, June 28, 2005 CET
From National People's Gang
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageIf the Adam Smith is Coming Alliance can show that their generous offer to fund vouchers so that children from the poorest families may attend the most "successful" private schools without wrecking the economy, we may even consider changing our vote.

But then in such a fairyland, anything can happen.

Date19:01:59, June 28, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageWhile we find the name of the non existant alliance highly ammusing, there is no alliance beyond similar political beliefs.

What we can assure the Equitista party is that the amount of funds released by no longer regulating and running educational establishments is more than sufficient to enable the voucher schemes to cover all but the most exclusive schools. We would also indicate that the bestr schools, i.e. those that educate the children the best, are never the most exclusive. In the same sense that the best cars are never the most expensive or the best places to live are never the most expensive. We would ask by what standards you would judge the most 'successful' schools to be such.

Date20:59:57, June 28, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageThe most successful private schools will naturally attempt to serve the largest number of people, as this will increase the amount of funds available to them.
The voucher system provides that even the poorest families have the ability to afford any school that charges an amount equal to or less than the amount of the voucher.
the ASP explained it rather well on another forum:
"A person wants education.

Education is on offer through private schools only.

That person can not pay for private schooling.

The government offers to pay for him

The system chosen is that of a government cheque (voucher) for a specific value.

If the school is more expensive than this then the person can top up
the voucher or choose a cheaper school.

Schools will tend to charge the voucher rate as this gives them the best return.

The voucher can be means tested and variable in value. "

And no, no actual alliance exists, only several shared political opinions.

Date21:01:02, June 28, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageNaturally, the most successful schools will be those that recieve the best return, those that charge the voucher rate.

Date23:18:27, June 28, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageNo offence to the word dissent.

Our party policy is not yet decided on religious schooling. However, we are opposed, as stated repeatedly, to the main thrust of this bill, the abolition of public education. Thus the "no" vote.

We expect to introduce our proposed compromise after the next election, which would restore public schools alongside private schools.

Date00:03:35, June 29, 2005 CET
From National People's Gang
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
Message"If the school is more expensive than this then the person can top up the voucher or choose a cheaper school."

As we've said before, you only think in terms of money. If you want equal rights, why do you deny the poor?

This bill is about what we'd expect from the twins, but we're increasing disappointed that the Amystian Council is being sucked into supporting legislation which is about achieving philosophical victories at the expense providing the best possible services.

Date10:14:59, June 29, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageIt seems to our party that Equitista is the one fighting for misguided philosophical causes, while the Amystian Council, the Sensible Activists Party, Tuesday Is Coming, and the Adam Smith Party work towards the (historically) best method for providing the best possible services.
That our moral, practical, and philosophical goals coincide in this way is coincidence.

On this particular bill, the vote was pro-choice for our citizens. The competitive nature of the market will ensure a quality education, and the voucher system will ensure that all are able to afford it.

Date10:15:59, June 29, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Education Choice Act
MessageAnd we thank CCF Greens for their last post.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
    

Total Seats: 255

no
    

Total Seats: 120

abstain
  

Total Seats: 75


Random fact: The Real-Life Equivalents Index is a valuable resource for finding out the in-game equivalents of real-life cultures, languages, religions, people and places: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6731

Random quote: "Education: the inculcation of the incomprehensible into the indifferent by the incompetent." - John Maynard Keynes

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 112