HOUSE BILL: Amendment to the Return Education... (Passed)

[wxtransit]

I'll offer an amendment to the amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

For the reasoning given above (I agree about science/career expansion), and that foreign language should be required. However, unless it's microeconomics, I don't see any need for mandatory economics, as that would be more as career course (would a future meteorologist really need to study macroeconomics?).

[wxtransit]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have a few problems with this curriculum. First of all, Career courses should not be cut down to just one grade in high school. They are important in determining what a young citizen wants to do with their future. As for Sciences and Atlasian History, the range of years should be extended to eight, covering Student's Elementary and Junior High School careers. Finally, I agree with Transit's proposition, though I would like to make a few changes. This requirement should be known as "(G.) International Languages" and should span from grades 7-12, becoming optional after grade 10.

I addressed these (save for Languages other than English being 7-12 instead of two grades) already.

[wxtransit]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have a few problems with this curriculum. First of all, Career courses should not be cut down to just one grade in high school. They are important in determining what a young citizen wants to do with their future. As for Sciences and Atlasian History, the range of years should be extended to eight, covering Student's Elementary and Junior High School careers. Finally, I agree with Transit's proposition, though I would like to make a few changes. This requirement should be known as "(G.) International Languages" and should span from grades 7-12, becoming optional after grade 10.

I addressed these (save for Languages other than English being 7-12 instead of two grades) already.

To clarify, here's what I would like it to be amended to be:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I support this amendment (to the amendment to the amendment), though I would say to make English required for all 12 grades and to make three grades of the career course optional, as from personal experience many students already have a packed schedule full of AP/Honors/IB classes and with the requirements, having more than one required grade of a career course could force the student to not take higher-level classes or even take part in a program.

[wxtransit]

We should really have two sets of numbers for each subject: one for how much schools are required to mandate, one which they are required to offer.

Good point. I'll amend.

[wxtransit]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[wxtransit]

An issue with the History stuff. A lot of schools alternate their history courses between World History some years and Atlasian (US) History other years, but this would forcefully disrupt their current curriculum by forcing Atlasian History every year.

Oh. I interpreted it as general history, whoops. Might this work?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[wxtransit]

Can we just add PMasta's Health thing to the amendment Transit and I proposed and just be done with this?

Yes, sorry, I'll amend, I was busy last night.

[wxtransit]

Can we just add PMasta's Health thing to the amendment Transit and I proposed and just be done with this?

Yes, sorry, I'll amend, I was busy last night.

Does this mean you will be offering a final revised text as an amendment?

Yes, I will.

[wxtransit]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Honestly, I also think that we may be going too far with the restrictions, and instead I suggest we offer generalized recommendations.

[wxtransit]

Wouldn't computer science be lumped in with career courses?
At least from what I remember from being in school, all of my computer science courses were categorized the same as other career courses one could potentially take.

I (at least personally) see as computer science is a growing fundamental skill in society, no matter the profession (learning how computers work and rudimentary coding skills are almost a necessity now), so that is my reasoning for not putting it in with career courses.

Also, now (to my knowledge), computer science is not designated as a career course.

[wxtransit]

I'd also like to point out something mentioned in my White House thread, and my understanding of the original bill:

I probably should have asked this when I was still in Congress, but where does the federal government get the authority to dictate the contents of regional curriculums? Or does this merely require the regions to meet these standards in exchange for federal funds?

To my knowledge, it's merely a requirement in exchange for federal funds. The point of the Return Education to the Regions Act was to allow the regions to dictate what all is included in their curriculums, but at the very least we must ensure that there are some minimum requirements to meet to ensure all of our children are receiving a quality education.

While I understand the importance of all these different courses being proposed, it's taking away from the real purpose of the bill, and at the rate this is going, might as well be amended to end the bill we just worked towards passing and signing into law.

I just addressed this fact in the new amendment.

[wxtransit]

/shrug

I don't want to call for a final vote yet, as I feel there are still some unaddressed concerns that members have.

[wxtransit]

I'll call for a final vote.

[wxtransit]

Aye.

[wxtransit]

Ugh okay hang on.

Just to clarify, these years specify what the school has to OFFER, yes? Not what they have to mandate? I need to know for the Fremont bill I'm drafting. Mandatory 4 years foreign language seems excessive (especially considering that for some languages, fourth year = AP level)

First, we've already started the final vote, so we can't stop.

Second, it is what all students have to take at some point in their schooling. Unless specified, this does not have to mean high school. For example, here in Texas, students can start formal foreign language classes as early as fifth grade (if I remember correctly), and added four years to that would be ninth grade, so the student would not have to take classes beyond that. Students don't have to take it to AP level (though it would be recommended), and they don't have to take it exclusively in high school either. It depends the way the region wants to structure their curriculum, as the grade ranges in the bill refer from a K-12 range of grades, not a 9-12 range of grades.

[wxtransit]

Ugh I'd prefer 3 years but whatever.

I guess I oppose this now.

Pls veto fhtagn, I want my Regions' Rights back.

The rights of the regions are fully protected here. This is to ensure a national standard (which some regions have not yet met, and to ensure students get the same quality of schooling across the nation. This shouldn't be made into a politicized issue. If you re-read the amendment, you'll see the requirements are extremely modular and put the regions in full control of their curriculum. The standards are not applied to any school year. I mean, technically, a region could even have their students take all four years of language starting at Pre-K. And why shouldn't we encourage students to think beyond English and study a new language for four years to enrich the learning of the language? Three years is too little; students only really start to get a grasp of the language after learning key components introduced that take four years to teach (tenses, conjugations, etc.), and cramming it into a minimum of three would not just be detrimental for the teachers, but also for the students' learning.

[wxtransit]

I did. I just was planning for mandatory 3 years in middle + high, and none in elementary school.

Wait, can I mandate a middle school Latin class to fulfill the requirement?

Sure, but that's for the regions to decide. We couldn't amend that at the federal level.

[wxtransit]

I did. I just was planning for mandatory 3 years in middle + high, and none in elementary school.

Wait, can I mandate a middle school Latin class to fulfill the requirement?

Sure, but that's for the regions to decide. We couldn't amend that at the federal level.

I'm treating this from a regional perspective for now; working on the Fremont bill.

I think one year career course is fine. A little bit less essential now that CS is its own thing, but I think it can stay. My big problem is the four years language.

Ah, ok.

Additionally, four years of language is necessary to set a foundation for greater language learning in the future and language development. By year three, students begin to enter more complicated concepts yet have not started to get a grasp on B1-ish level control of the language (from what I've seen). By year four; however, students have got a solid base of the language by learning many new tenses and conjugations that were not covered in year three and earlier. Having four years is to ensure that all students get the foundation they need before moving on to something else.