Educational Funding Clarification Bill [Passed]

[Hatman 🍁]

This amendment is tied 5-5, the VP gets to do his duty...

I'm afraid, I'm not going to be able to provide an immediate answer to this one. There has been no discussion of this amendment, and frankly I don't understand what the full ramifications of it would be.

If someone would be so kind as to explain to me (roughly) how this amendment would change the way in which government funds are delivered, I'd appreciate it.
Also, what is the current status of funds spent on education viz á viz tax deductability?
And, surely clause 2 is very broad in simply describing 'education' spending as tax deductable, wouldn't that cover all sorts of things beyond what I suspect it intends?

Frankly any explanation on these things or general arguments for or against would be welcome.

Well, for one thing, it completely replaces the last bill which you voted to support.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would have no problem with making educational spending completely tax deductable,

In this case it would essentially re-inforce racial segregation in education (that it would re-inforce class segregation in education goes without saying).

[Јas]

This amendment is tied 5-5, the VP gets to do his duty...

I'm afraid, I'm not going to be able to provide an immediate answer to this one. There has been no discussion of this amendment, and frankly I don't understand what the full ramifications of it would be.

If someone would be so kind as to explain to me (roughly) how this amendment would change the way in which government funds are delivered, I'd appreciate it.
Also, what is the current status of funds spent on education viz á viz tax deductability?
And, surely clause 2 is very broad in simply describing 'education' spending as tax deductable, wouldn't that cover all sorts of things beyond what I suspect it intends?

Frankly any explanation on these things or general arguments for or against would be welcome.

Well, for one thing, it completely replaces the last bill which you voted to support.

I understand that - but that's hardly an argument for or against the amendment. If it's better than the standing bill, I'll vote for it; if not, i'll vote against. I'm simply trying to get a better understanding of it at the time being as I'm not particularly au fait with the Southeastern system.

BTW does anyone have any idea how what proportion of funding we're talking about - i.e. does anyone know the split between federal and regional funding, particularly in the SE? Does any such data exist?

I would have no problem with making educational spending completely tax deductable,

In this case it would essentially re-inforce racial segregation in education (that it would re-inforce class segregation in education goes without saying).

How so?
(You'll have to forgive me, though I can discuss the Irish education system till the cows come home, the situation here is not something I'm terribly familiar with.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How so?

Because the people who opt out of state-sector education in the area in question are overwhelmingly white and from middle class (not in an American context, but as you and I would understand the term) households. I think (but am not entirely sure) that in some Southern states a majority of pupils in state-sector education are Black.

To illustrate my point about race and education in certain parts of Atlasia, two maps showing part of the Jackson metropolitan area in Mississippi. On the right, the % of people who are Black, on the left, the % of people who no high school diploma (ie; no qualifications).



The correlation is by no means perfect, but it certainly exists and it is certainly very strong.

Education (or rather the lack of it) in areas with large Black populations is already a national disgrace (that is a fact, not an opinion).
Think what would happen if rather a lot of money was withdrawn from the education system simply to subsidize the decision of affluent households to remove their children from mainstream education.

You will note that I have not mentioned why there are as many private schools as there are in the Southeast region. I don't think bringing that up would be helpful at all and would probably just poison the debate to an even greater extent.

[Ebowed]

I urge the Vice President to vote against this amendment which completely destroys the intent of the bill.

[Brandon H]

If this were to pass, one region would no longer receive ANY funding for education while the other four would.

What is the current system in the Southeast?
The only relevant Southeastern law I've found has been the School Choice Initiative the consequences of which on public schools are unclear to me.

The first part of the amendment (which I'm sure is more clear of the two) would allocate funds based on students attending public schools. Perhaps that is how the system is now. If that is the case, then this part of the amendment would change nothing, but the current form of the bill would.

Perhaps the second part is overly broad. To my knowledge money spent on tuition costs are NOT tax deductible. So persons attending non-public schools are saving the government money by not using the services provided by the government but are paying taxes that go towards education anyway. I would limit education to "any money charged by a school to attend" and supplies such as books.

I would have no problem with making educational spending completely tax deductable, but yes, I do think the wording is overly broad and would potentially encompass too many disperate activities.

As a result of the school choice initiative, the Southeast now uses a voucher system. Currently, the federal government provides funding to the regions for education, but I have no idea what amount of funding is regional and what amount is federal. The second to last amendment that passed bans providing funding to a regional voucher system which currently is only the Southeast. The voucher system would also allow persons the opportunity to attend a public or private school.

[Brandon H]

Jas,
Either I withdraw the current amendment or please vote against it.

I'm re-introducing Section 1 without Section 2 (which eliminates the need for numbering).


All regions shall receive an equal amount of money per child under the age of 18 attending a public school.

[Ebowed]

I motion to strike the text of the bill and replace it with the following:

1. No federal funds shall go towards any Regional school voucher system.
2. This act shall take effect three months after it becomes law.

This will give those currently engaging in a voucher system the time to make necessary adjustments.

[Јas]

Thanks to all for your patience.
I vote Nay on the amendment.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I motion to strike the text of the bill and replace it with the following:

1. No federal funds shall go towards any Regional school voucher system.
2. This act shall take effect three months after it becomes law.

This will give those currently engaging in a voucher system the time to make necessary adjustments.

Backtracking on agreeing that we should let kids currently going on voucher should be able to continue?  So much for helping the kids

[Ebowed]

Your version is too vague.   When does the voucher eligibility expire?  I think mine is a suitable compromise.

[Brandon H]

Bump. Amendment on the floor, waiting to be voted on.

All regions shall receive an equal amount of money per child under the age of 18 attending a public school.

[Sam Spade]

Sorry, for some reason I missed this yesterday...

We are now voting on the following amendment:

All regions shall receive an equal amount of money per child under the age of 18 attending a public school.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Aye.

[minionofmidas]

This supposed to replace the current bill?

Nay.

I would obviously vote aye if it were tacked onto the bill as section 3, btw.

[Brandon H]

Aye

[PBrunsel]

Aye

[Hatman 🍁]

Nay, unless it is not replacing the bill.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oddly enough, I'll vote Aye. Other sections can always be added/re-added later and I don't think that we're in any kind of rush.

[Ebowed]

Nay.

[Ebowed]

I withdraw my previous amendment and motion to strike the text with the bill and replace it with as follows.

Education Reform Bill of 2007

Section 1: Selective Education
1. No federal money shall go towards any K-12 private school tuition (including, but not limited to, those financed by any Regional school voucher programs).
2. This section shall become effective three months after this act becomes law.

Section 2: Public School Funds
1. Noting the poor quality of many public schools in certain areas of the Southeast Region, an additional $500 million shall go towards improving the maintenance of K-12 school buildings, textbook purchases, classroom supplies, teacher salaries, and before-and-after school extra-cirricular programs in public schools within the Southeast Region.
2. All other Regions shall receive an extra $350 million each to fund the items mentioned in Section 1.

Section 3: Low-Income Education Encouragement Pay Program
1. The federal government will institute a Low-Income Education Encouragement Pay Program.
2. Teachers whose classroom at any public K-12 school contains a large proportion (40% or more) of students from low-income households (combined annual income of less than $40,000) will be given a 35% pay increase.

Section 4: Classroom Size
1. No public school classroom, excluding physical education classes, may have a ratio of more than 25 students to every 1 teacher.

Section 5: Acceptance of Science
Subsection 1: Human Sexuality
No funds from the federal government shall go towards any sex education curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as based on scientific evidence:
1.) the trait of homosexuality or bisexuality is an entirely conscious choice and/or is strange or unnatural.
2.) the participation in homosexual sex acts is an unnatural act observed only in humans.
3.) the proper use of contraceptive devices including but not limited to condoms is grossly ineffective in preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections.
4.) engaging in sexual activity before marriage with proper precautions is dangerous.
5.) males and females should limit themselves to careers which have historically been associated with masculine and feminine roles, respectively.
6.) the surgical or medical termination of a nonviable pregnancy causes, or is in any way linked to, the development of breast cancer.
Subsection 2: Origins
No funds from the federal government shall go towards any scientific education curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as based on scientific evidence:
1.) the status of biological evolution as a scientific theory is somehow different or set apart from that of other scientific theories such as gravity or relativity.
2.) fossil evidence for biological macroevolution is largely inaccurate or misinterpreted by mainstream scientists, or presents a picture that contradicts with biological evolutionary theory.
3.) radioactive carbon dating is always inaccurate or scientifically unreliable.
4.) the age of the earth is less than ten thousand years.
5.) the origins of the universe and of life on earth are scientifically explained by religious texts or creeds.
6.) the complexity of certain types of life on earth are of such a magnitude that they present valid evidence for that of a higher power or "intelligent designer."
7.) creation theories are testable by the scientific method.
8.) the Second Law of Thermodynamics contradicts the Big Bang.
Subsection 3: Cannabis
No funds from the federal government shall go towards any drug prevention curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as based on scientific evidence:
1.) marijuana use fails to alleviate symptoms associated with terminal illness (e.g. cancer).
2.) recreational use of marijuana invariably leads to use of "hard" drugs (the so-called "gateway effect").

Section 6: School Nutrition
1. No public school may be allowed to supply 'soft' drinks to students at a lower price than milk and juice products.
2. No public school may place vending machines with snack products in the same building as where Physical Education programs take place.
3. Breakfast and lunch meals will be provided free of charge to any student from a low-income household (as defined by Section 3, Clause 2).

Section 7: College Tuition Taxes
1. Tuitions for colleges and universities will be taxed in the following ways, on the basis of the candidate's family's annual income.  The tuition's tax will rise proportional to the income, and shall be taxed at the following rates, with each rate corresponding to the tax rate on only the portion of the income that falls in the appointed range.
a.) $0-$50,000: 0%
b.) $50,001-$75,000: 0.5%
c.) $75,001-$125,000: 1%
d.) $125,001-$200,000: 2.5%
e.) $200,001-$500,000: 5%
f.) $500,001 or more: 7.5%
g.) Families where there are more than two children whose income falls into the ranges of c.) through f.) will be eligible for a decrease in the rate by 0.5%.
2. All taxes on textbooks and school materials for students are abolished.

Section 8: Status of Immigrants
1. No child attending, or preparing to attend, a K-12 public school shall be discriminated against on the basis of their citizenship status, lack of documentation, place of birth, first language, nor shall they be discriminated against on the basis of the citizenship status, documentation status, place of birth, first language, or criminal status of their parent(s).

Section 9: Homeschooling
1. The Attorney General will be required to prepare a report on the status of homeschooling standards within Atlasia, along with any recommendations he or she may feel necessary to improve the status of homeschooling, no later than December 31, 2007.

[Rob]

Nay

[Јas]

Tally on Brandon's Amendment
Aye: 4 (Sam; Brandon; PBrunsel; Al)
Nay: 4 (Lewis; Earl; Ebowed; Rob)
Yet to Vote: 2 (DWTL; Phil)

[Sam Spade]

bumping for those who may have missed.

[Sam Spade]

With 4 votes in favor, 4 votes in against, 1 not voting, and 1 seat absent, the VP gets to do his duty.

[Јas]

With 4 votes in favor, 4 votes in against, 1 not voting, and 1 seat absent, the VP gets to do his duty.

I agree with Lewis.

Nay