Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
> Opinion Polls
Party Ratings
Test: 50%
Current Government: National Party
National Issues
Health: 50% Education: 50% Economy: 50% Law & Order: 50%
Transport: 50% Social Affairs: 50% Environment: 50% Foreign Affairs: 50%
Government Reputation
Strength: 50%
Popularity: 50%
Trust: 50%

Welcome to Mock Parliament. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Compulsory Standard Education Bill
Topic Started: Aug 15 2009, 11:38 PM (392 Views)
Inevitable
Member Avatar
WOBBUFFET!
Moderator
I believe that a good education is not a right of all children; it is a necessity. While I acknowledge that it is unlikely that I will achieve my true goal of eliminating Private Education, and the class boundries it enforces, I can at least hope to ensure that everyone gets the same education across the board.

Previous legislation has been enacted to try and ensure this, but I now intend to go one step further.

Under this legislation, firstly, it will be considered cruelty to prevent a child from attending schooling between the ages of 4 and 16 (with some leeway granted to accommodate the start and end of school years), unless there is a medical reason why they cannot. This does not include school suspension periods and total school expulsion (though the child will be required to attend a different school in its stead).

It should be noted at this point that schools provide valuable opportunities for children to interact with others of their age group. This helps to accommodate valuable social skills that are necessary for later life. As such, Home Schooling will not be considered a viable alternative to attending schools, and therefore illegal under this legislation.

Secondly, the Education Standardisation Act will be rendered applicable to all education establishments (that deal with the age-groups where the Education Standardisation Act is applicable) regardless of whether or not they’re public or private. This will ensure that employers will be able to know for certain what a potential employee has learned regardless of where they were educated. Note that any school may still offer subjects outside those defined in the Education Standardisation Act as additionals.

Thirdly, funding for Public Schools shall be increased to place them nearer the level of service offered by Private Schools. This will include providing funding for schools to employ a transport service to reach pupils in its area.

In summary, this legislation renders school education compulsory and ensures that all schools teach the same subjects.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
*makes a few generic protests and then walks off to the Commons bar for some soon-to-be cheap ale* :)


PS: Public schools are private schools. Change it to state schools.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Inevitable
Member Avatar
WOBBUFFET!
Moderator
Commoncold0
Aug 15 2009, 11:41 PM
*makes a few generic protests and then walks off to the Commons bar for some soon-to-be cheap ale*  :)


PS: Public schools are private schools. Change it to state schools.

Only in the UK, and that's because they stole the term and use it inaccuratly.

Also, the Commons Bar has a 50% Kitten Tax.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DynamoJax
Member Avatar
17th and 20th PM of Ostentia.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The bill, which does have some good intentions, will likely run afoul of the Constitution as set forth in Article IX, quoted fully below for good reference (bolded text indicates clauses of which the bill comes into potentially direct conflict):

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Ostentia
 

Article IX: The Bill of Rights
a. All citizens of Ostentia will be considered to have fundamental constitutional rights, as set out in this article. No law may be created, whether at a State or National level, which denies people these rights. The rights set out in this article are limited to the extent that they may not be used to deny the rights of others.
a.1. The rights granted to the citizens of Ostentia by this constitution shall also be considered as granted to the children of Ostentian citizens, limited in so far as they are able to competently exercise their rights. Furthermore, the government shall have a constitutional right to intervene to ensure the welfare of all children in Ostentia, a right which is to be given constitutional status equal to that of the constitutional rights of any individual citizen.
b. All citizens of Ostentia shall have the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of belief.
c. All citizens of Ostentia shall have the right to due process under the law.
c.1. No citizen may be imprisoned or detained without charge.
c.2. Every citizen has the right to a fair trial by jury of their peers, in which they are to be given the right to answer the accusations made against them.
c.3. Any citizen of Ostentia charged with a criminal offense shall be given the right to legal counsel and the right against self-incrimination.
c.4. No citizen convicted of a criminal offense shall be subject to cruel and unusual forms of punishment, including the death penalty.
d. All citizens of Ostentia shall have the right to protection from unlawful activities.
e. All citizens of Ostentia shall have the right to equal opportunities under the law, in that they may not be discriminated against on grounds of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
f. All law-abiding citizens of Ostentia shall have the right to freedom of assembly.
g. All adult citizens of Ostentia shall have the right to participate in government, both at a state and national level, through the use of democratic procedures.
h. All citizens of Ostentia shall have the right to basic medical treatment and the right to a basic education.



To be frank and direct, the problem of the bill lies in these two sections. Italic text is my own reasoning as to why, bolded text is emphasis (mine).

Proposed Compulsory Standard Education Bill
 


Under this legislation, firstly, it will be considered cruelty to prevent a child from attending schooling between the ages of 4 and 16 (with some leeway granted to accommodate the start and end of school years), unless there is a medical reason why they cannot.
This portion of the legislation would likely run afoul of the Constitution on several grounds, including Article IX sections B and E. The bill makes no providence for people's faiths or religious holidays. The Constitution grants freedom of religion, not necessarily freedom from religion. Should this clause be better written to allow for religious and ethnic holidays, it is possible that the bill can pass constitutional muster.

It should be noted at this point that schools provide valuable opportunities for children to interact with others of their age group. This helps to accommodate valuable social skills that are necessary for later life. As such, Home Schooling will not be considered a viable alternative to attending schools, and therefore illegal under this legislation.

This is a bit more on a limb here, but I believe that this portion of the bill would not pass Constitutional muster on the grounds of Article IX, section H. All Ostentians are to have the right to basic education, and in theory, the prohibition of home schooling could make it downright impossible for some to receive some form of education, even with the best of governmental help. Again, on a limb here, but I'd rather be safe than sorry on this bill
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Inevitable
Member Avatar
WOBBUFFET!
Moderator
DynamoJax
Aug 16 2009, 12:16 AM
There might be a constitutional question with this bill, but I'm going to re-review it before I open my mouth more.

Apparently it's not, but which part do you mean anyway?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DynamoJax
Member Avatar
17th and 20th PM of Ostentia.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
See above post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DMHowe
Member Avatar
Under Investigation
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
*points out this bill technically makes it a "cruelty" to expell or suspend a child*

*leaves*
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Oh, and what about people who live in remote areas and cannot realistically make it to and from school each day?



I think there might also be an issue with Article IX.f. as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Inevitable
Member Avatar
WOBBUFFET!
Moderator
Brief IRL comparison: A lot of countries, including the UK and the USA have compulsory education acts and it's only in some cases of the latter that home schooling is permitted.

Anyway, that's not reasoning, so I'll say this instead: It's very difficult to talk about rights when dealing with children. On the one hand, we can say they should be given the choice to do whatever they want, but if you ask any child whether or not they want to go to school, what do you think they'll say?

No, children are not mentally mature enough to make the choice.

So we move onto the role of guardian. If the parent/guardian decides not to send their children to school, are they not depriving them of the right to education? Should this not be considered a crueltly? Especially as it will hugely damage the child's job prospects in later life, as well as encouraging child labour.

As for Home Schooling, I stand by what I said: It limits social growth of the child and certainly can't ensure that a proper level of education is met.

Quote:
 
Oh, and what about people who live in remote areas and cannot realistically make it to and from school each day?


Though I find it unlikely that anyone would be incapable of attending school, perhaps funding for school bus systems/or necessary alternatives should be employed.

Adding this and DMHowe's point now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Water down the bill then. Give the authorities the right to compel parents to send their children to school (except in cases where there is a medical or geographical reason) UNLESS it can be proven that the education they are recieving at home meets at least the minimum standards of state education.


EDIT: You can't bus people everywhere. Also, I've just thought about another issue - what do we do about travellers?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Inevitable
Member Avatar
WOBBUFFET!
Moderator
Commoncold0
Aug 16 2009, 11:36 AM
Water down the bill then. Give the authorities the right to compel parents to send their children to school (except in cases where there is a medical or geographical reason) UNLESS it can be proven that the education they are recieving at home meets at least the minimum standards of state education.


EDIT: You can't bus people everywhere. Also, I've just thought about another issue - what do we do about travellers?

No, because that still doesn't take into account the fact that what's written on a school syllabus is not all you learn in school. How can Home Schooling ever hope to replicate what a child will learn about social interactions in school?

This is just as important as knowing how to do maths or whatever.

Also, it doesn't specify buses, meaning that if someone is really out of the way, a sort of taxi service can be provided. Although, again, I don't think Ostentia is big enough to mean that.

And I'll think a little about Travellers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
By out of the way, I am literally talking about people living on the tops of mountains etc.

You don't need to go to school to develop social interactions, and the social interactions you develop at school are not necessarily healthy. If a parent was deliberately preventing a child from having any contact with the outside world, then that would probably be a case for social services anyway.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DMHowe
Member Avatar
Under Investigation
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Commoncold0
Aug 16 2009, 12:45 PM
You don't need to go to school to develop social interactions, and the social interactions you develop at school are not necessarily healthy.

I agree. *hates teenagers*
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Inevitable
Member Avatar
WOBBUFFET!
Moderator
Commoncold0
Aug 16 2009, 12:45 PM
You don't need to go to school to develop social interactions, and the social interactions you develop at school are not necessarily healthy.

And everything in the Real World is?

So what if one's not healthy? You deal with it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Inevitable
Aug 16 2009, 01:56 PM
Commoncold0
Aug 16 2009, 12:45 PM
You don't need to go to school to develop social interactions, and the social interactions you develop at school are not necessarily healthy.

And everything in the Real World is?

So what if one's not healthy? You deal with it.

But surely your whole justification for this bill is to give the child more "healthy" social relations?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Legislation · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Mock Parliament Wiki

Looking for the posts about Democratia, Ostentia or Brian Blessed? Click here.