Petition to Stop the " National College Access Act"

[Former President tack50]

This bill represents a gross overreach in the federal government's role in education. Furthermore, this bill will only create more harm done to the education system in Atlasia.


Section I and II:
The bill will remove two standardized tests that have been traditionally used to determine a college applicant's aptitude, while also nationalizing all testing services and creating one standard for students. This defeats the purpose of challenging the tests' ability to accurately determine aptitude. A better solution would be to remove any existing laws or regulations that prevent future testing companies from developing their own standard. There has been a duopoly on testing that should be critiqued, but creating a government run monopoly that is bound to fail and is impossible to critique only damages future scholars in the long-run. Furthermore, Section II removes AP exams which allows students to test out of freshman-level classes and reduce the cost of tuition. This is wrong, immoral, and honestly insane considering the fact that liberals campaign on reducing the cost of education for Atlasians. This will drive up the cost of education, force students to take classes they could place out of in high school, and reduce the incentive for colleges to lower tuition costs. This lets colleges continue to profit without providing a quality education for a lower cost.


Section III:

This section is interesting since Section III.3 gives regions the power to opt-out of any assessments in favor of regional assessments, but what is the point of doing this while also nationalizing testing? Regions are already using these testing services for college applicants. This forces regions to either create their own regional services or let some private company handle it. Couldn't a region just adopt the original standards? This seems like a smart way to avoid criticism of central planning by giving legal deniability, while at the same time having legal grounds to centrally plan.

Section IV:

This isn't thought out at all. What happens if your standards are actually bad and produce worse results? Are you just going to modify them until they meet some abstract standard the federal government believes is adequate? Section IV also doesn't go into enough detail about what tests should specifically be about. This needs to be critiqued by everyone. Where is the proof by lawmakers the current system we have doesn't work and there's an analysis proving that the proposed system will solve most problems?

Section V and VI:

Both sections should be removed immediately. The Department of Education deserves no power in setting prices, deserves no budget increases, and doesn't demonstrate a need to increase taxes in this bill. It sends the wrong signal to citizens when you increase funding, increase taxes, and subsidize the cost of books (which is just a transfer of the cost), while at the same time eliminating AP exams which are critically needed in a time of rising tuition costs.

Ok, let's go part by part:

Section I: How is creating a government monopoly something bound to fail? Or how does it defeat the purpose of challenging the student's abilities?

Section II: Yes, this removes APs because I felt that, as a concept, they are a bad idea. People should not be advantaged in college, being allowed to skip classes and what not. However from what I have been told, AP tests really only allow you to skip "general education requirements"? If so, to be honest, I would amend the bill, or do another bill so that universities are forced to abolish general education requirements (this may have to be a regional bill though).

In any case let there be no doubt that I, alongside most of my colleagues in the Labor party I suppose; fully support reducing tuition costs to something reasonable or even make it completely free

Section III: Well, I personally believe the tests should be done at the regional level. I can certainly see the argument to involve the regions more in here. I will note that irl where I live, centralizing testing is the conservative position for what is worth

Section IV: Yeah I suppose Section IV.1 is not detailed enough. However, it can't be since education is still a regional matter. The Atlasian federal government really can't dictate to the regions what they can and cannot teach. It is not my intention to centralize education, so guidelines much more specific than that are not really an option. However, regions can pass big education reforms. In my time in the Lincoln Council we passed a huge education overhaul that was regrettably repealed I think. But it was still there.

Sections V and VI: I mean, this is just generic left wing stuff, and we have a Labor supermajority (well, more like we had one but whatever). I will say the original version of this bill paid for the nationalizations of College Board and what not by priviatizing 5% of the Postal Service, but that got amended.

[Former President tack50]

The AP classes are for people who are in "advanced classes", and for people in advanced classes, the course is harder then the general classes and unless people could move up grades in certain subjects, I'd oppose it the bill.

I mean, I do think that people in high school should be taught the same, without discrimination good students from bad students

(yes I have very weird views on education for Atlasian standards)

[Former President tack50]

Education reform should focus on reducing the amount of credits students need to graduate. Most degrees should not require 120 credit hours - many of which are in general Ed classes - in order to graduate. College should be about specialization in a field of interest, not another high school.

I agree with this 100% actually. College should be about specialization and probably cut down to 3 years.

My question here would be whether a reform like that should be a regional reform or a national reform.

[Former President tack50]

Section 1: If your goal is just to create a monopoly, then sure, it wouldn't fail. But if your goal is to improve education, this government run monopoly will fail.

Section II: Why should people not be able to receive credits by examination? And if you think AP exams are an "advantage", are you also suggesting honors programs, college run placement tests, and exam exemptions should be eliminated as well?

Section III: Then what's the point of nationalizing this?

Section IV: If you are centralizing exams, you are creating a path to centralizing education.

Section I: So uh, why exactly would a government run monopoly fail?

Section II: I don't think people should receive college credits for stuff they do before college. There is a concrete program for college. Like I said to DTC I actually support getting rid of general education requirements. As for the other programs you describe, like for instance honors programs; I would be fine with them giving students scolarships or free tuition, but not allowing them to skip classes.

College should be for the specialized stuff you do not learn in high school

Section III: I mean, having stuff be ran by the regional governments is still nationalization? The regions are still part of the state after all

Section IV: Yes I know, but I do not want to centralize education too much. I am a big believer on the fact that education should be regional actually. But I don't think giving out some general vague guidelines is somehow undue centralization.

[Former President tack50]

I don't think people should receive college credits for stuff they do before college. There is a concrete program for college.

So because you have some random belief people dont deserve to earn credits before college everyone should suffer higher costs? You didn't add anything in the bill dealing with gen ed requirements. The cost is going to rise. Additionally, you still haven't provided a reasonable argument on why AP exams are a bad thing.

Well like I said it is debatable whether a bill to deal with gen ed requirements should be a regional or a national bill. But hey, if that is your wish I will more than gladly introduce such an amendment

As for why killing AP is good, very simple. High school is high school and college is college and there should be little to no overlap between the 2. If there is something that you can do in high school that can give you credit for college; then it is not fit for college and should just be made mandatory in high school.

The purpose of college is to provide an specialized education that cannot be achieved in high school. If colleges are giving credit for stuff done in high school, that kinda defeats their own purpose.

[Former President tack50]

I don't think people should receive college credits for stuff they do before college. There is a concrete program for college.

So because you have some random belief people dont deserve to earn credits before college everyone should suffer higher costs? You didn't add anything in the bill dealing with gen ed requirements. The cost is going to rise. Additionally, you still haven't provided a reasonable argument on why AP exams are a bad thing.

Well like I said it is debatable whether a bill to deal with gen ed requirements should be a regional or a national bill. But hey, if that is your wish I will more than gladly introduce such an amendment

As for why killing AP is good, very simple. High school is high school and college is college and there should be little to no overlap between the 2. If there is something that you can do in high school that can give you credit for college; then it is not fit for college and should just be made mandatory in high school.

The purpose of college is to provide an specialized education that cannot be achieved in high school. If colleges are giving credit for stuff done in high school, that kinda defeats their own purpose.

If you have to do that, how are college admissions supposed to work? If this happened, then people would have to buy their ways into college.

Why would this destroy college admissions? It's not like people will suddenly not have classes lol.

Also I certainly don't believe people would have to buy their way into college with this. There can be legitimate concerns about the bill but these are not some of them.

[Former President tack50]

As for why killing AP is good, very simple. High school is high school and college is college and there should be little to no overlap between the 2. If there is something that you can do in high school that can give you credit for college; then it is not fit for college and should just be made mandatory in high school.

I stated most of this before but will state it again:

- AP courses are much cheaper than the comparable college course as you only pay the test fee and textbooks, allowing students to save money on college and have a lower student loan debt burden.
- Students who enter college with AP classes graduate sooner, and such, can sooner contribute to the Atlasian economy
- AP courses are significantly more challenging than a regular high school course, teachers who teach it have to go through additional training and certification. Allowing students to have a challenge and statistically, students who take AP courses are better prepared for college. It also improves their admissions likelihood as completing these courses proves they can handle the rigors of college.

Do they have AP where you went to school, have you ever taken an AP class? Saying it isn't fit for college is a narrow-minded view if you've never done it, how can you speak on it? I hope you will do more research and reflection on this issue before pursuing it any further. "High school is high school and college is college" is a very poor justification for killing a program that helps students prepare for college and be more financially secure. The same can be said for dual enrollment programs.

No I have not taken an AP class for obvious reasons Maybe I am being a bit narrowminded here. But I still think of high schools as something that should be uniform.

Mind you on principle I am not opposed to say, making AP's level the standard level in high schools. But that is probably a regional reform.

And let there be no doubt that I support measures to make college cheaper, including getting rid of dumb general education classes unrelated to your degree.

In any case, even if we were to keep AP, that is a single line in the bill though I would still prefer the program to be reworked or at the very least regionalized. Oh and it should 100% be ran by the regions, so nationalization is still in order.

While I agree to lessen the standardized testing, I disagree with dispelling the AP program. Advanced placement courses enhance a student's ability to meet the demands of academic study in college. It helps prepare them immensely to begin thinking at a higher level. AP courses, upon receiving a passing score, can save students money in college credits. Why get rid of such a valuable program?

Let's think of it the opposite way. If AP is so good, why not make it the standard and the norm, instead of the exception?

[Former President tack50]

We live in a very contorted world where "nationalization" of anything with its empowering of the centralized state and bureaucracy is "necessary" for the sake of regionalizing something.

Regionalism isn't about the Federal gov't doling out the crumbs of the cookies it doesn't fancy taking for itself. Regionalism is about the preservation of powers that originally belong to the regions and minimizing the extent to which the Federal Gov't has usurped either legally or illegally said powers from the regions originally.

It is my contention that education by rights belongs to the regions, and that the Federal Gov't should support the actions of the regions to ensure resources are available and while some strings necessarily come along with this, those should be minimized. Nationalization of private property and entities is not part of that equation. The Regions can regulate said entities to service their needs and the Federal Gov't can back them up in that regulatory effort if necessary. Yet we keep getting back to "well you need to nationalize to do this, nationalize to do that". NO! You Don't!

Get outside of the centralist hive mind and consider the alternatives before making declarative statements that "this is the only way" when such is patently false.

Tbh my RL background probably shapes me thinking "top down" rather than "bottom up" in terms of regionalization even when I hate that kind of thing irl

In any case, I personally believe that, since College Board is a corporation that operates federally, it should be nationalized by the federal government even when its replacements will be distributed among the regions. It certainly would not make sense for any of the regions to nationalize said corporation.

I actually do agree with the fact that education belongs to the regions and I am trying my best to not push for an undue centralization of education in the federal government any more than is necessary for the nationalization of College Board (and ACT Inc).

I have not hidden that this is a pro-government power bill or statist bill at all. But I will 100% contest seeing this bill as a pro-centralization bill

[Former President tack50]

Making AP the norm for every student with a one size fits all track is a bad idea. Ted is right, different people have different needs and it also contributes to the fat that we have a lot of people going into fields with degrees that are saturated, meanwhile we have drastic shortages in skilled blue collar trades.

This is because we have created as stigma that the path to riches is paved in shelling out huge sums for college and loading up on debt to get their, only to find the rainbow doesn't lead to a pot of gold but a pot of misery. Meanwhile we have discouraged blue collar fields and treated them as second class people with secondary needs and as if they were unimportant and don't matter.

This 4 year school bias in our school system and the effects that it has had in driving the college debt crisis as well the shortage of skilled trades needs not to be made worse, it needs to be eliminated. AP is a great program, but here again, "one size fits all", "make it the standard", "force everyone to do the same thing", "nationalize the program" it all comes from the same mindset of policy makers dictating in advance what kids should do without considering their own skills, needs and interests on an individualized basis. The end result of this standardization, this regimentation of education is going to be far more drop outs and far more poverty.

I thought about pointing this out on my reply to tmth but ended up deciding against it. But I will say that I do fully support encouraging and empowering apprenticeships and the like instead of creating a "one size fits all" of college or bust.

Certainly people that want to do an apprenticeship would have no need for a program like that.

We should 100% encourage people to pursue apprenticeships over college. But wouldn't such a reform be better for a regional bill?

[Former President tack50]

Anyways, if AP abolition is really the only issue people have with the bill it will not be the hill I choose to die on. I will propose an amendment like this if people want me to:

SECTION I. NATIONALIZING BIG TEST MAKERS
1. CollegeBoard is hereby nationalized and placed under the control of the Atlasian Department of Education.

2. The Educational Testing Service (ETS) is hereby nationalized and placed under the control of the Atlasian Department of Education.

3. ACT, Inc. is hereby nationalized and placed under the control of the Atlasian Department of Education.

SECTION II. PHASING OUT BAD TESTS AND PROGRAMS
1. The Scholastic Assessment Test (ACT) shall be phased out by the end of the 2021/2022 school year.

2. The ACT test shall be phased out by the end of the end of the 2021/2022 school year.

3. The design and execution of the Advanced Placement program (AP) shall be phased out transferred to the several regions of Atlasia by the end of the 2021/2022 school year.

4. The Atlasian Department of Education shall work towards reducing the amount of public standardized tests supplied to public high schools.

5. Any private organization seeking to supply assessments to any public high school in the Republic of Atlasia must comply with the standards specified in Section IV of this bill in addition to any standards implemented by regional governments.

SECTION III. NATIONAL TESTING ORGANISATION
1. CollegeBoard, the Educational Testing Service and ACT, Inc. shall be consolidated into a new assessment provider referred to as the National Testing Organisation (NTO). This new organization shall be formed as a subsidiary under the Department of Education.

2. The NTO shall be responsible for producing assessments to the standards provided in Section IV of this bill.

3. Regions are permitted to opt-out of any assessments imposed on a national level in favour of regional assessments.

4. The NTO shall have a separate department for each region which shall produce assessments according to the policies of the regional governments.

5. The NTO shall operate on a budget of $800 million per year, subject to inflation.

6. The NTO shall begin distributing assessments for academic year 2021/2022.

SECTION IV: ASSESSMENT STANDARDS
1. All specified assessment providers must meet the standards described in this section:
 a. All specified assessment providers must incorporate 2 or more of the following modes of assessment into any assessment regime:
 i. Essay-based assessment.
 ii. Research project.
 iii. Mathematical problem-solving.
 iv. Scientific experiment.
 v. Artistic project.
 vi. Work experience and internships.
 vii. Spoken exam.
 b. All specified assessment providers must have clear arrangements for giving special consideration to students facing the following circumstances:
 i. Physical and mental disabilities.
 ii. Learning difficulties.
 iii. Illness or injury.
 iv. Bereavement.
 
2. Schools must have clear arrangements to ensure access to assessments to students facing limiting circumstances.
 a. Eligible concerns:
 i. Physical and mental disabilities.
 ii. Learning disabilities.
 iii. Illness or injury.
 iv. Bereavement.
 b. Responsibilities:
 i. Schools must offer the opportunity to take an assessment at another date for students who are unable to take an assessment where there is a specific date.
 ii. Schools must inform the assessment provider if a student is eligible for special consideration as outlined in Part 1b.
 iii. Schools must respond to and record concerns issued by Students and Guardians regarding a need for special consideration.
 
3. All specified assessment providers must provide the following material free of charge:
 a. Past papers
 b. Sample papers
 c. Model answers
 d. Grading rubric
 e. Information about relevant learning materials available for students

4. A sub-department shall be formed under each regional department which shall be responsible for ensuring that the assessments produced by the NTO meet the standards provided in this section.

5. The sub-departments created by Part 4 are required to publish a report by the 1st of November every year examining the assessments they have produced, the results and feedback received; and explaining measures the organisation has taken to ensure the standards covered in this section and any additional policies implemented by the relevant region have been adhered to.
 a. This provision shall take effect on the 1st of January 2022.


SECTION V: INVESTING IN THE NEXT GENERATION
1. The budget of the Department of Education shall be increased by $10 billion.
 a. This money shall be used to fund the grant provided in Part 3.
 b. The remainder of this money shall be distributed to schools.
 i. The Department of Education shall be tasked with calculating a formula which prioritises schools with large class sizes, low funding per student and low achievement.

2. The price for a textbook or other learning material required to take an assessment shall be capped at $75 per item.

3. Students living below the Atlasian Federal Poverty line shall be eligible for a $200 grant to pay for books and supplies.

SECTION VI. PAYING FOR THE NATIONALIZATIONS
1. A tax of 2% per annum shall be levied on endowments supported by educational institutions who have net assets of more than $500,000 per student.
 a. The threshold of net assets of more than $500,000 shall be subject to inflation.

SECTION VII. ENACTMENT
1. This bill, except for the parts that specify otherwise, shall become enacted immediately after passage

[Former President tack50]

It certainly would not make sense for any of the regions to nationalize said corporation.

WHHHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY??

I actually do agree with the fact that education belongs to the regions and I am trying my best to not push for an undue centralization of education in the federal government any more than is necessary for the nationalization of College Board (and ACT Inc).

I have not hidden that this is a pro-government power bill or statist bill at all. But I will 100% contest seeing this bill as a pro-centralization bill

You see this is the slow drip, the trickle to centralization right here. "I am trying not to centralize education, except for what is necessary to do x". When you aren't accounting for is the next guy that comes along and says the same thing for y and then the guy after that does it for z, then the guy after that is Xahar 2.0 calling for the elimination of the regions.

I mean, do you seriously think say, Fremont has the right to start nationalizing businesses in Florida or wherever? Hell, better yet, do you think this bill would be any better if say, Lincoln was nationalizing the College Board in all of Atlasia?

Federal corporations should be nationalized by the federal government. It is something self-explainatory I would argue?

Also, like I say, this is a bill that tries to reduce the centralization to a minimum. Like I've said, it would be much, much easier for me to create a bill that sweepingly centralizes college access in all of Atlasia as well as all of college education by abolishing gen eds and what not. That'd go a long way to, for instance, calm at least some of Deadprez's concerns.

But I am taking the hard route and going out of my way to leave several avenues for the regions to tackle college education at a later time, much like Fremont under Truman has done.

[Former President tack50]

Is that the limit of your vision? Can you not see how a region could do this?

If you mean nationalization, no I don't. I cannot see how a region can perform such a nationalization.

If you mean solving the current issues without nationalization yes I do see it. But in this case, nationalization is not only a means to an end, but an end in itself as well. Quite simply, why should publicly funded colleges and public high schools depend on private corporations to decide how their students are tested?

[Former President tack50]

Is that the limit of your vision? Can you not see how a region could do this?

If you mean nationalization, no I don't. I cannot see how a region can perform such a nationalization.

If you mean solving the current issues without nationalization yes I do see it. But in this case, nationalization is not only a means to an end, but an end in itself as well. Quite simply, why should publicly funded colleges and public high schools depend on private corporations to decide how their students are tested?

The correct answer is: The Regions can create their own test and limit/regulate/not utilize other alternatives at their discretion.

Yes and they still can. I don't get the issue here?

If you mean solving the current issues without nationalization yes I do see it. But in this case, nationalization is not only a means to an end, but an end in itself as well. Quite simply, why should publicly funded colleges and public high schools depend on private corporations to decide how their students are tested?

Why should publicly funded hospitals rely on private corporations to supply them with medical supplies?

Why should they rely on Colorox to provide them with bathroom cleaner?

A competitive, private sector market can provide these goods and services more efficiently and cheaper than having the government do it itself.

Publicly funded entities rely on the private sector all of the time, the question is thus not whether or not public entities should rely on private sector suppliers, but whether or not they are getting the service or good in the manner that fits the need and also is a reasonable cost.

If Regions aren't satisfied with the quality of the tests provided they should regulate and/or create their own. Either way, it isn't grounds to send in jackbooted thugs to steal private property for the central state to distribute the crumbs from.

There are certainly instances where indeed things are better left to the free market but this is not one of them.

Honestly I feel there is just a philosophical divide here. Sure, the regions could in theory adopt such laws, essencially not recognizing the SAT tests nor any other similar tests; and then creating their own regional standards.

However nationalizing the College Board and then distributing its remainders is also a good option.

You can think of it as "bottom-up" vs "top-down" devolution. The latter is still regionalism in my view.