title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education | Graduates may move abroad to avoid tax payments As taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it. |
ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education | A graduate tax would reduce teh autonomy of universities If a graduate tax were introduced the money would go to the national treasury which would result in universities competing for the same money as colleges. At the moment the money generated from tuition fees goes straight to where it should go, straight to the universities bank accounts who provide the education. Under graduate tax proposals from the UK’s National Union of Students, raised revenue from the tax would go into a centralized higher education fund which could be distributed by the government through various means which could result in some universities getting unfair levels of funding relative to both their standing and student bodies. (Barr, N. 2009) This is impractical for universities to plan investments as they will never be entirely sure what funding they will have and furthermore and for many arguably most importantly universities will ultimately lose their independence from the state. |
ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education | Setting up a graduate tax system would be damagingly expensive A graduate tax would be a very expensive scheme to put into effect, as it would require high levels of government spending on student grants before the first graduates began to repay anything through taxation. If all the 2011 English applications for university we’re accepted at the new top price of £9,000 it would cost the Government in the first year just over £3 million, and this figure does not take into account all the other grants universities receive and as time goes on and more years enter the system the figure will grow greatly. (Guardian, 2011.) It is likely then to be two decades of investment or more before the system begins properly to pay for itself. Furthermore a costly increase in government bureaucracy would be necessitated by the need to keep track of so many graduates and by the complications the system introduces to the general taxation system. With many Governments taking up austerity measures it is simply impractical to setup a new funding system which is not needed. |
ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education | As taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it. |
ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education | The alternatives to a graduate tax are worse: Full state funding encourages many without clear motivation or ability to enter university, leading to high dropout rates, while removing incentives to complete courses in a timely manner. The USA has a philanthropic culture absent in many other countries, meaning private colleges have large endowment funds offering a very large number of bursaries and scholarships to poorer students. Nonetheless, the individual states do fund universities and few students pay the full cost of their higher education. Elsewhere in the world the absence of state funding tends to limit access to university to the children of a prosperous elite. Even in the USA students from some ethnic minorities are much more reluctant to take on high levels of personal debt, and are therefore very underrepresented in higher education. The USA’s high level of personal bankruptcy is linked to the high levels of debt built up while at university. A graduate tax then can be seen as a happy medium between the two extremes of Full state funding and No funding whereby the student pays for the benefit of having a higher education only when they are fit to do so. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | Of course scientific opinion changes over time. It does so because the process of scientific enquiry requires the search for new data. Theories are not rigidly adhered to, but are rather accepted when there is evidence for them. When evidence mounts against a theory it is rejected. The examples cited show this very well. The idea that the world was flat was proposed as a theory without proof but by the end of the classical world Pliny was able to say "Every one agrees that it has the most perfect figure. We always speak of the ball of the earth, and we admit it to be a globe bounded by the poles." [1] as scholars had provided evidence of the earth being spherical. This process of change can harm some scientists' careers, but it can also make others. There is no monolithic scientific establishment setting policy, denying younger researchers from exploring new hypotheses and avenues of inquiry. It is clear from this that Creationism is not a science, because it does not change in light of new evidence, but rather dogmatically adheres to its claims in spite of evidence. Science adapts to new information. Creationism is stagnant and intellectual barren. [1] Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, John Bostock ed., Taylor and Francis 1855. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | Scientific opinion often changes; evolution may be accepted in the scientific community now, but it could well be rejected in future. The opinion of the scientific community with regard to facts and theories has a great propensity to change with time. Once scientists adamantly maintained that the Earth was flat. For centuries it also maintained that there were two kinds of blood flowing through the human body. Science is not infallible and the prevailing theory is no more than the opinion currently in vogue among scholars. In light of new evidence, theories can change over time, giving way to better explanations [1] . For this reason, the evolutionists' dogmatic adherence to their position in spite of contrary evidence provided by Creationists is hard to understand. However, it becomes clear why the scientific establishment takes such a confrontational position toward Creationism when one considers that many eminent scientists and researchers have built their careers within the paradigm of evolution, and their research often depends wholly on its acceptance. These scientists would lose their exalted position in the light of a paradigm-shift in scientific understanding away from evolution. It is for this reason that scientists who adhere to established norms so often fight things like Creationism, even though they provide explanations where evolution cannot. For science to progress, these conservative impulses must be fought against, which is why it is essential that when science is taught, so are all the prevailing theories concerning branches of the sciences, including Creationism. [1] Understanding Science. 2011. “Science Aims to Explain and Understand”. University of California Berkeley. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | There is no design in biology. People tend to anthropomorphize their environment, trying to assign human-like qualities to animals and nature. All of the complexity of life on Earth can be attributed to natural processes; life, diversity, and complexity are all the product of physical and chemical interactions and biological processes. There is no mystery in the basic process. Also, complexity is not at all indicative of design. In fact, evolution has been observed to occur from simple single-celled organisms into multi-cellular organisms under laboratory conditions. That degree of evolution completely refutes any claims about complexity requiring design. Furthermore, there are no irreducibly complex organisms. Every example offered by theists of irreducible complexity has been found inaccurate. The bacterial flagellum, for example, when several key components are removed loses its functionality as a motor, but becomes a form of secretory system that has a separate function. [1] Clearly, complexity is not indicative of a creator. [1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | Communities should have a say in what is taught in schools, and many communities want to teach creationism. Society is made up of communities with their own views on politics, religion, education, etc. School boards should be able to set curriculum based on the desires of the public, not just on what the scientific elites command to be taught. Children deserve to hear that their beliefs and those of their community are respected in the classroom. This is why Creationism, a belief held to varying extents in many countries, should be taught in the classroom. This is particularly true in the United States, where in several states the majority of people does not accept evolution, but have instead adopted Creationism, considering the evidence for the latter to be more convincing. [1] In a poll in 2009 a majority (57%) said that creationism should be taught in schools either without evolution or alongside it. [2] The teaching of Creationism should not be taught exclusively, but should share time with other prevailing theories, particularly those of evolution and abiogenesis. Furthermore, evolution taught exclusively threatens religious belief, telling children they are no more than animals and lack the spark of grace given by God. It is important for social stability that schools are allowed to teach what communities believe to be true. [1] Goodstein, Laurie. 2005. “Teaching of Creationism is Endorsed in New Survey”. New York Times. [2] HarrisInteractive. 2009. “No Consensus, and Much Confusion, on Evolution and the Origin of Species.” BBC World News America/The Harris Poll, 18th February, 2009. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | There is a very real controversy regarding the origin and development of life, and children deserve to hear both sides. Many scientists do not accept the conclusions of the evolutionists. People like Dr. Michael Behe have dedicated themselves to exposing the flaws in evolution and showing that there is very real disagreement within the scientific community. This controversy is highlighted in the many court cases, books, and televised debates occurring in countries all over the world [1] . Children deserve to hear about the controversy, and not to simply be fed one story set for them by the prevailing majority in the scientific community, even if that community cannot claim anything near consensus. Until consensus is reached and indisputable proof of one theory or the other given, both sides should be taught in schools. [1] Linder, Doug, 2011. “The Evolution Controversy”. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | There is no controversy. It is not even a matter of most scientists agreeing with evolution, but virtually all of them. This is demonstrated very clearly in the scientific literature, as thousands of papers are submitted for peer review every year on the topic of evolution, all bolstering and upholding the theory. On the other hand, on average zero are submitted supporting Creationism, because such papers would not meet the necessary criteria of being scientific research at all. [1] Some papers at best question evolution, but attacks on one theory are not supports of another. Furthermore, the reason there are public debates and court cases is that Creationists seek to capitalize on the relative scientific illiteracy of the general public, knowing they can only win by spreading disinformation, rather than facing off against real scientists in the academic realm. [1] Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | Schools should teach what is true. Evolution is one of the most robust theories in contemporary science; it is not the place of communities to propagate lies, even if they are more in keeping with their religious beliefs. Indoctrinating children and denying them access to real science, which happens even if Creationism and evolution are given "equal time", is to fundamentally compromise the value of education [1] . It is an inculcation of false belief to suit a communal goal of maintaining a set of beliefs that may not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The Creationists cannot win in the scientific arena because they are not scientists so they have decided to try to subvert the political system. Their goal is to undermine science and reason, and they must be stopped. [1] Rooney, Brian and Melia Patria. 2008. “Because the Bible Tells Me So?”. ABC News. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | Creationism is not science. It makes no predictions that can be tested in the laboratory or field. Adherents of Creationism do not accept it because of evidence, but rather they shape disparate facts to fit their beliefs. That is the opposite of scientific enquiry; Creationism begins with a conclusion and works backward. Furthermore, all evidence does indeed point to a natural origin of life and its diversity. Experiments are getting consistently closer to creating new life, and there are no evident bounds to evolution. The arguments of Creationism are based on gaps in knowledge; rather than trying to find real answers through scientific enquiry, they fill them with "the designer did it". Such answers are the refuge of the ignorant. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | Much of the complexity of life cannot be explained by evolution, but is perfectly explained by Creationism. Nature is marked by clear design. The complexity of the human body, of ecosystems, and even of bacteria, attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as, for example, interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a designer. Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it would lose all functionality. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the "motor" that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [1] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which is nonsensical. Creationism serves to explain the various mysteries of biology currently absent from the evolutionary biologists' picture of the world. The existence of complexity of the order found in the natural world is too great to envisage an origin other than complex design. [1] Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. Glencoe: Free Press. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | Creationism is as valid a scientific theory as those of evolution and abiogenesis, and should therefore be given equal time in the classroom. Creationism can be drawn as an entirely reasonable scientific hypothesis, and it forms a coherent theory of the origin and development of life that opposes the naturalist theories of abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis describes the development of life from nonliving materials and evolution seeks to explain the development and diversity of life through a gradual process of mutation and natural selection, yet no one has ever demonstrated either process sufficiently in the laboratory. In the case of abiogenesis, all experiments to create an environment similar to the supposed prebiotic soup whence life first sprang have resulted in no new life forming. In the case of evolution, evolutionists consistently fail to show the development of new kinds of organisms [1] . While there is no doubt that some change occurs within species, such as the breeding of wolves into dogs, it appears to happen only within certain limited bounds. Certainly no experiment or study has shown evolution to be capable of explaining such huge diversity in the world of living things. Creationism, on the other hand, offers the explanation that abiogenesis and evolution cannot. The diversity of life and its origin are rationally explicable as the product of intelligent agency. This is not a statement of religious belief, but of scientific observation. Describing the nature of the designer, however, is another question all together, one that need not be answered in order to accept that there is such a designer. [1] Wells, Jonathan. 2009. “Why Darwinism is False”. Discovery Institute. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | Evolutionists point to all kinds of evidence "proving" their case, yet they still fail to offer a practical demonstration of their theory that would prove that all life could have evolved from a common ancestor. That still requires a great deal of faith on the part of the scientists. As to positive proof for Creationism, there are many co-dependent species relationships, as well as irreducibly complex biological structures which evolutionists have consistently been at a loss to explain. Creationism offers the explanation evolution cannot. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | Education should be about truth and facts, not dogma and faith. Scientific enquiry is, at its core, a search for truth [1] . It is about shining light in dark places. Dogmatic adherence to beliefs in spite of evidence, and even trying to cover up facts that contradict those beliefs is academically dishonest and intellectually facile. Evolution is proven fact, a theory so sound that it is the cornerstone of all biology. Nothing in biology makes any sense unless considered in the context of evolution. Schools should teach this fact, not the pseudoscience of religious demagogues. It is a fundamental attack on children's rights to subject them to false information for the sake of upholding outdated and disproved beliefs. It is a right of all people to have a valuable education, because good education is required to be able to take part in the democratic process, to be able to make informed decisions. That right is compromised when the educational system gives them a worthless education in untruths, like Creationism, because informed decisions must be based on fact, and must be objective the way science is, rather than loaded with religious undertones, that skew ones view of the facts. The value of education is only as good as its applicability, either directly or through its fostering of critical thinking. So, when the political process is used to circumvent the curriculum set by teachers and experts, who actually know the subjects they are talking about, and replacing them with the curriculum set by a scientifically illiterate political body, the children suffer as the quality of their education decreases. [1] Pauling, Linus. 1983. No More War! New York: Dodd Mead. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | Creationism is a religious, not a scientific, explanation of reality. Creationism is, by definition, not science. It is not based in any empirical evidence. Rather, Creationists start with a presupposed answer and work back from it. They assume there is a designer, so they look for holes in evolutionary theory and claim only a designer can explain the gaps. When new evidence arises that gives a natural explanation of the phenomenon in question, the Creationists backpedal and start looking for new holes. No amount of evidence could convince a Creationist because his belief is not based on evidence, but rather on a usually religion-driven opposition to evolution on a political and belief level. A science proves itself through experimentation and submitting research for peer review. Creationism fears scrutiny by real scientists. Instead supporters of creationism attempt to further its agenda through politics and courts, where science is not the main goal, but popularity and where expertise is not in science but in law (Dawkins, 2006). Creationism couches itself in the language of science and does its best to look respectable in the eyes of the public. For example, in rebranding as Intelligent Design, Creationists sought to appear less overtly religious. These attempts show the illegitimacy of Creationism. The pseudoscience of Creationism must, for the sake of education, be kept out of the classroom. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | There is no empirical evidence supporting Creationism, whereas all evidence supports abiogenesis and evolution. Creationists have never once offered a positive evidence for their claims. When challenged, they respond with vitriolic, and often deliberately false, criticisms of evolution and abiogenesis. They behave as if delegitimizing an alternative theory necessarily gives credence to their own. Unfortunately for Creationism, that is not how science works. Positive claims require positive evidence. Even if the Creationists were able to provide evidence that actually refutes evolution it would do nothing to support a theory that intelligent agency is behind the existence and development of life. For Creationism to be true, there would need to be demonstration of living organisms that are unambiguously designed, and not the product of evolution by means of mutation and natural selection. Proponents of Creationism have consistently failed to do so. When they point to things they claim to be irreducibly complex they are invariably forced to back off as soon as scientists appear on the scene to test their claims. [1] The truth is there are no examples of organisms that could not have evolved. Abiogensis and evolution, on the other hand are thoroughly proven by observation and data. [2] In the case of abiogenesis, self-assembling molecules have been observed that are akin to the first proto-life, and hopes have never been higher that they will be able to observe the development under laboratory conditions of fully-formed new life. Evolution likewise is extensively demonstrated. Speciation, phylogenetic mapping, a more and more complete fossil record, structural atavisms, junk DNA, and embryology provide just some of the proofs of evolution. [3] All of these disciples are in agreement with evolution. In fact, only in light of evolution does anything in biology make any sense at all. Clearly, Creationism has no basis in science and thus no place in the classroom. [1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience. [3] Colby, Chris. 1997. “Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey”. TalkOrigins Archive. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | The scientific community as a whole overwhelmingly rejects Creationism. 95% of all scientists accept evolution, and only a fraction of those that do not accept Creationism. [1] The numbers are even smaller among biologists, the people most qualified to discuss the relative merits of Creationism and evolution, as the study of life and biological processes are their specialty. There is, in fact, greater consensus in biology than in virtually any other discipline. Evolution is often called one of the most thoroughly proven theories, more so even than such things as the observable laws of physics, which break down at the subatomic level. Evolution is a constant, which is why it has survived as a theory for 150 years. [2] The scientific community always fights any effort to institute Creationism in schools through the political process. [3] This is why, when court cases are brought on the issue of teaching Creationism, the panel of scientists is always on the side of evolution. Only a few discredited cranks support Creationism, and they invariably break down under cross-examination when they can offer no positive evidence for their claims. Furthermore, many scientists have religious faith and accept evolution. They simply see no reason to reject observable reality just to serve faith [4] . Creationists try to portray evolution as contrary to religion, which forms one of the main planks of their political campaigns against it, but such claims are fallacious. Science and faith can be compatible, so long as people are willing to accept observable reality as well as belief. The scientific community rejects creationism because it is not true and is not science. [1] Robinson, B. 1995. “Public Beliefs About Education and Creation”. [2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience. [3] Irons, Peter. 2007. “Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design”. University of Montana Law Review 68(1). [4] Gould, Stephen. 2002. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | Creationism is a legitimate scientific endeavor. Researchers struck by the apparent design in organisms look for evidence of that design. There is nothing pseudoscientific in that. There are many issues that evolution cannot explain, but which Creationism can (Behe 1996). Evolutionists can say the gaps in their theory will be filled over time, but that is not a scientific proposition either. |
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach | Truth is a complex thing. Scientists claim to know what is true and that schools should only teach their truth. But their truth changes with time. Communities can hold, and desire to hold, beliefs with more constancy. States everywhere recognize the value of communities and often give them special rights and exemptions for the sake of those beliefs. The Amish in America, for example do not need to attend education past the primary level, because the communities do not desire it. Communities give structure and lend stability to broader society, so they should be allowed to behave with a degree of leeway in terms of issues like education. Creationism is a truth for those who adhere to it and see that evidence fits that paradigm more than does evolution. Until irrefutable proof of evolution is given, as the scientific community has yet to do, both paradigms are equally valid and should be available to students in the classroom. |
x education education general secondary house would fund education using | Incentives like this can be (and in the UK, are) created by central government through the use of targets. Failing schools can receive extra funding and guidance, and threatened with closure if they do not improve. The voucher scheme’s harsh free market system of incentivisation takes away extra funding and support – indeed, failing schools without full classrooms will face diminished levels of funding – and so makes it even harder to run schools in tough areas. |
x education education general secondary house would fund education using | Improving the quality of state managed education State schools will, like the private schools, have to offer a high quality service in order that parents do not take their children elsewhere. This incentivises in particular high level management, who, if the school fails, will be out of a job with a blot on their record. |
x education education general secondary house would fund education using | Variety within the education system is not always a good thing. National curricula exist to facilitate transfer between schools and comparisons of different pupils and schools, as well as enforcing basic standards. Thus, not only might variety lead to some sub-standard schools, but it might trap children in a particular school that fails to match the child’s ambitions as it grows up, and ceases simply to reflect its parents’ desires, because the child lacks qualifications or even just knowledge required by a more appropriate school in the area. |
x education education general secondary house would fund education using | Equality of opportunity between richer and poorer children State education in some areas of the UK is continuing to fail, despite increased investment. This will allow those pupils who are currently locked into sub-standard state education access to the private schools enjoyed by their more privileged peers (because you can spend the vouchers anywhere). Even if private school fees can only be subsidised by the voucher scheme, most private schools are charitable organisations that do not run a profit, and so in the vast majority of circumstances the voucher will make private schools accessible to poorer families. |
x education education general secondary house would fund education using | The best schools will continue to differentiate themselves (there is competition amongst the top schools in an area to attract the brightest pupils), and as the voucher scheme will subsidise those currently paying for private education the market will be able to support higher fees. The result of this is that the voucher scheme will subsidise better facilities for the best schools, whilst poorer children will remain trapped in the schools with lower standards. |
x education education general secondary house would fund education using | Increasing parents' freedom of choice Different parents have different values and priorities, and it is entirely legitimate for them to wish to pass these on to their children. The state does not know any better than them with which values the ideal life can be lived. Further, children are individuals who respond in very different ways to different styles of teaching. Parents know their children better than central government possibly could, and so are the best placed to decide what sort of school their child should go to. Currently, there is very little state provision for non-mainstream styles of learning, whereas in the private sector there is a big incentive for educational innovation. |
x education education general secondary house would fund education using | Most government goals that are pushed forwards in schools are also valued by the parents: consequently, even under a free market they would be taught in schools. Further, if the majority of parents do not want such things taught in schools, then they should not be: to do so would be to use schools as a tool for state propaganda. |
x education education general secondary house would fund education using | It is currently the case that some children, with unfortunate home circumstances, don’t get optimal educational provision as a result of their parents’ failure. However, there are many parents who are able to make good decisions on behalf of their children, and who are currently blocked from doing so only by the unaffordable prices of some schools. These parents should not to discriminated against on the basis of the incompetent minority. |
x education education general secondary house would fund education using | Only well-off families will benefit from increased freedom of choice Under the current system, many schools that are “failing” are struggling as a result of factors such as deprivation in their area, or high levels of children for whom English is not their native tongue. There will be no incentive for companies to set up schools in such areas: the voucher scheme dictates that each child gets the same amount of funding, and thus in schools where a lot of extra facilities (like extra teachers, specialist language tutors etc.) are needed the potential profit to be made will be lower. On the other hand, children in well-to-do middle class areas will be highly profitable (it is not difficult to make children with a wealth of parental support do well in their exams). Thus rich children will have a range of subsidised schools from which to choose, whilst the poorest in society are still failed. |
x education education general secondary house would fund education using | The state retain control of schools - freedom, in this context, is illusory The state funds education using taxes taken from everyone in society, not just those who have children. Therefore the state has a duty to benefit the whole of society, not just parents and children, when funding education. It is therefore entirely legitimate for the state to use schools to fulfil other societal purposes. A good example of this is the question of teaching citizenship in schools: it does not necessarily help children to pass exams, and so schools do not have a strong incentive to insure that children are taught it. However, it fulfils government goals of helping to ensure that people become functioning members of our democracy. When schools are privatised it becomes increasingly difficult for the government to ensure that such agendas are followed in schools. |
x education education general secondary house would fund education using | The most vulnerable children would be left behind by the scheme Even if a voucher scheme is used, parents still need to have considerable input in order that their children are able to access the best educational opportunities. Thus, those children who are most vulnerable, i.e. those with inadequate home support structures, will find that they are unable to access the best schools as their parents may lack the desire or knowledge to find out which schools are the best in their area. Further, this problem will be exacerbated by the subsequent dearth of funding at the worst schools. |
x education education general secondary house would fund education using | Admittedly, it may take extra measures to help children in the very poorest areas. This is required under the status quo and could still be provided under a voucher scheme (e.g. extra funding for children in deprived areas). However, there are many children in between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich who are currently excluded from the opportunities afforded by some of the best schools. These children, as you accept, will see an increase in the choice of schools. The fact that this motion does not solve all of the problems in education does not prove that it does not solve any. |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | Public funding does not mean that everything should be free and open to use by the public. We do not expect to be allowed to use buildings that are built as government offices as if they were our own. The government builds large amounts of infrastructure such as airports and railways but we don’t expect to be able to use them for free. |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | Most universities are publically funded so should have to be open with their materials. The United States University system is famously expensive and as a result it is probably the system in a developed country that has least public funding yet $346.8billion was spent, mostly by the states, on higher education in 2008-9. [1] In Europe almost 85% of universities funding came from government sources. [2] Considering the huge amounts of money spent on universities by taxpayers they should be able to demand access to the academic work those institutions produce. Even in countries where there are tuition fees that make up some of the funding for the university it is right that the public should have access to these materials as the tuition fees are being paid for the personal teaching time provided by the lecturers not for the academics’ publications. Moreover those who have paid for a university course would benefit by the materials still being available to access after they have finished university [1] Caplan, Bruan, “Correction: Total Government Spending on Higher Education”, Library of Economics and Liberty, 16 November 2012, [2] Vught, F., et al., “Funding Higher Education: A View Across Europe”, Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente, 2010. |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | Open access makes little difference to research. If an academic needs to use an article they don’t have access to they can pay for it and gain access quickly and efficiently. The benefits to the economy may also be overstated; we don’t know how much benefit it will create. But we do know it would be badly damaging to the academic publishing industry. We also know there are risks with putting everything out in the open as economies that are currently research leaders will be handing out their advances for free. There is an immense amount of stealing of intellectual property, up to $400 billion a year, so research is obviously considered to be economically worth something. [1] With open access the proposal is instead to make everything available for free for others to take as and when they wish. [1] Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, “Backgrounder on the Rogers-Ruppersberger Cybersecurity Bill”, U.S. House of Representatives, |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | Opens up education Higher education, as with other levels of education, should be open to all. Universities are universally respected as the highest form of educational institution available and it is a matter of principle that everyone should have access to this higher level of education. Unfortunately not everyone in the world has this access usually because they cannot afford it, but it may also be because they are not academically inclined. This does not however mean that it is right to simply cut them off from higher educational opportunities. Should those who do not attend university not have access to the same resources as those who do? This can have an even greater impact globally than within an individual country. 90% of the world’s population currently have no access to higher education. Providing access to all academic work gives them the opportunities that those in developed countries already have. [1] [1] Daniel, Sir John, and Killion, David, “Are open educational resources the key to global economic growth?”, Guardian Professional, 4 July 2012, |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | Making these academic materials available to the general public does not mean they are useful to anyone. Many of the materials universities produce are not useful unless the reader has attended the relevant lectures. Rather than simply putting those lectures that are recorded and course handbooks online what is needed to open up education is systematically designed online courses that are available to all. Unfortunately what this provides will be a profusion of often overlapping and contradictory materials with little guidance for how to navigate through them for those who are not involved in the course in question. |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | Most students most of the time stick to the core areas of their course and thus are not likely to encounter difficulties with finding the relevant information. For those who do require resources that the university library does not have access to they can use interlibrary loan for a small fee to cover the cost of sending the book or article between universities. [1] The universities in most countries can therefore effectively split the cost of access by specialising in certain subjects which limits the number of journals they need to buy while making the resources available to their students if they really need them. [1] Anon., “Inter-library loans” Birkbeck University of London. Within the UK Cambridge charges £3 to £6, in Europe the University of Vienna charges €2 while the United States is higher with Yale charging between $20-30 |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | Openness benefits research and the economy Open access can be immensely beneficial for research. It increases the speed of access to publications and opens research up to a wider audience. [1] Some of the most important research has been made much more accessible due to open access. The Human Genome Project would have been an immense success either way but it is doubtful that its economic impact of $796billion would have been realised without open access. The rest of the economy benefits too. It has been estimated that switching to open access would generate £100million of economic activity in the United Kingdom as a result of reduced research costs for business and shorter development as a result of being able to access a much broader range of research. [2] [1] Anon., “Open access research advantages”, University of Leicester, [2] Carr, Dave, and Kiley, Robert, “Open access to science helps us all”, New Statesman, 13 April 2012. |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | Students would be able to benefit from being able to use resources at other universities Having paid for access to universities and the materials they provide for research students have a right to expect that they will have all the necessary materials available. Unfortunately this is not always the case. University libraries are unable to afford all the university journals they wish to have access to or need for their courses. Therefore any student who wants to go into areas not anticipated by the course they are enrolled with will find that they do not have access to the materials they require. They then face the cost of getting individual access to an online journal article which can be up to $42, despite there being almost zero marginal cost to the publisher. [1] This even affects the biggest and best resourced university libraries. Robert Darnton the director of Harvard University’s library which pays $3.5million per year for journal articles says “The system is absurd” and “academically restrictive” instead “the answer will be open-access journal publishing”. [2] [1] Sciverse, “Pay-per-view”, Elsevier, [2] Sample, Ian, “Harvard University says it can’t afford journal publishers’ prices”, The Guardian, 24 April 2012. |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | The vast majority of people who go to University are not doing so simply because they are interested in a subject and want to find out more. Instead they are after the qualification and improved job prospects university provides. Even those few who are in large part studying out of curiosity and interest will likely be doing so at university because they like the student life and want the experience. However having courses and materials out in the open can even help universities with recruitment. Providing open access boosts a university’s reputation abroad which helps it in the international student market. Open access to academic work also helps give potential students a much better idea with what they will be studying which is very useful for students who are unsure where to choose. The benefits are obvious as shown by 35% of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s students choose the university after looking at its OpenCourseWare. [1] [1] Daniel, Sir John, and Killion, David, “Are open educational resources the key to global economic growth?”, Guardian Professional, 4 July 2012, |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | Academic work is not about profit. For most researchers the aim is to satisfy curiosity or to increase the sum of knowledge. Others are motivated by a desire to do good, or possibly for recognition. None of these things require there to be profit for the university. Moreover we should remember that the profit is not going to the individual who did the research, there is therefore no moral justification that the person has put effort in and so deserves to profit from it. The university does not even take the risk, which is born by the taxpayer who pays the majority of the research budget. Much of the profit from publishing this knowledge does not even go to the university. Instead academic publishers make huge profits through rentier capitalism. They have profit margins of 36% despite not doing the research, or taking any risk that goes into funding the research. [1] [1] Monbiot, George, “Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist”, The Guardian, 29 August 2011, |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | Making everything free to access will damage universities ability to tap private funding For most universities even if the government is generous with funding it will still need for some projects require private funding. When providing money for research projects the government often requires cost sharing so the university needs to find other sources of funding. [1] Third parties however are unlikely to be willing to help provide funding for research if they know that all the results of that research will be made open to anyone and everyone. These businesses are funding specific research to solve a particular problem with the intention of profiting from the result. Even if universities themselves don’t want to profit from their research they cannot ignore the private funding as it is rapidly growing, up 250% in the U.S. from 1985-2005, while the government support is shrinking. [2] [1] Anon. (November 2010), “Research & Sponsored Projects”, University of Michigan. [2] Schindler, Adam, “Follow the Money Corporate funding of university research”, Berkley Science Review, Issue 13. |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | Who will write and edit the work? You can’t take the end result out of the system and assume all the rest of it will continue as usual. Journal articles don’t write themselves; there will still be costs for editors, typesetters, reviewing etc., as well as the time and cost of the writer. The average cost of publishing an article is about £4000. [1] There have been two suggested forms of open access ‘Gold’ in which authors pay publishers article publication charges and ‘Green’ under which the author self-archives their papers in open access repositories. The gold option that the UK intends to implement could mean universities having to find an extra £60million a year. [2] In either case the cost is being put on the author. This is exactly the same when asking academics to put their lectures, lecture notes, bibliographies etc online. They are being asked to put in more hours grappling with technology without being paid for it. [1] Moghaddam, Golnessa Galyani, “Why Are Scholarly Journals Costly even with Electronic Publishing?” p.9 [2] Ayris, Paul, “Why panning for gold may be detrimental to open access research”, Guardian Professional, 23 July 2012. |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | Less incentive to study at university If everything that University provides is open to all then there is less incentive to study at university. Anyone who is studying in order to learn about a subject rather than achieve a particular qualification will no longer need to attend the university in order to fulfil their aim. The actual benefit of university education is less in learning content per se than engaging with new ideas critically, something that is frequently more difficult in an online environment. Moreover if only some countries or institutions were to implement such open access then it makes more sense for any students who are intending to study internationally to go elsewhere as they will still be able to use the resources made available by that university. Open access if not implemented universally is therefore damaging to universities attempts to attract lucrative international students who often pay high tuition fees. |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | Universities deserve to profit from their work Universities are providing a service just like almost any other business. They provide a service in terms of educating students who are enrolled with them and secondly they conduct research on a wide range of subjects. In both of these cases the university deserves to make a profit out of their work. When acting as an educator universities are in an educational free market, this is the case even when the cost is provided by the state. All universities are aiming to attract as many students as possible and earn as much as possible from fees. If the university is successful it will be able to charge more as it will attract students from further afield. While Universities may make a profit on research or even teaching this profit is for the benefit of society as a whole as the profits are usually simply reinvested in the University’s education and infrastructure. [1] [1] Anon. “What does the money get spent on?” The University of Sheffield, 2013. |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | This is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of those who fund the research in the first place; the taxpayer. The taxpayer (or in some cases private funder) pays for the research to be done and so is paying for the paper to be written. It then does not make sense that the taxpayer should pay again in order to access the research that they paid to have done in the first place. Yes there are small costs associated with checking and editing the articles but these could easily be added into research budgets especially as it would mean cutting out an extra cost that occurs due to the profit margins of the academic publishers. As Neelie Kroes, European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Agenda, says “Taxpayers should not have to pay twice for scientific research”. [1] [1] Kroes, Neelie, “Scientific data: open access to research results will boost Europe's innovation capacity”, Europa.eu, 17 July 2012. |
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all | If business wants certain research to use for profit then it is free to do so. However it should entirely fund that research rather than relying on academic institutions to do the research and the government to come up with part of the funding. This would then allow the government to focus its funding on basic research, the kind of research that pushes forward the boundaries of knowledge which may have many applications but is not specifically designed with these in mind. This kind of curiosity driven research can be very important for example research into retroviruses gave the grounding that meant that antiretrovirals to control AIDS were available within a decade of the disease appearing. [1] [1] Chakradhar, Shraddha, “The Case for Curiosity”, Harvard Medical School, 10 August 2012, |
teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission | Every other indicator is also skewed in favour of high-income students. They tend to have parents who are better educated and are interested and much more involved in their children’s education, as well as greater access relevant materials such as books and computers. Tutoring academically, while it may not involve having tutors test for a student, is probably much more impactful in the long-run, they may not be able to do extra-curricular activities but can help with homework (as can engaged parents), so would be just as likely to have an impact on coursework or another method of assessment as it does on the SATs. |
teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission | Standardized Tests are skewed in favour of the wealthy Standardized tests are inherently skewed in favour of high-income students. Tutoring is and industry unto itself and the resulting rise in scores among high income students skews the scale against students whose families cannot afford it. By contrast, even if the money is available, the impact that tutoring can have on a student’s academic performance is limited. A tutor cannot write papers or take tests for them, and nor can they answer questions in class, or participate in sports or other extracurricular activities. As a consequence, eliminating easily tutored standardized tests helps even the playing field between richer and poorer students. |
teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission | Language will be as much of an issue in understanding in college as it will be for the tests and is likely to be as much of a difficulty in any other method of determining college admissions. Otherwise these are objections to individual questions on the test, and not to the system itself. The very fact they have made have ensured that the same problems have not re-occurred. Indeed the analogies were dropped in 2005 and scores for the poorest students increased as a result showing that SATs can simply be changed when problems are found with the testing. [1] The problems with a purely grade based system are however intrinsic, and much harder for individuals to improve. [1] Cloud, ‘What’s Good about the New SAT Test’, 2006 |
teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission | Standardized tests result in teachers “teaching the test” The importance attached to such tests leads to teachers actively “teaching the test.” The result is that many teachers, rather than instilling useful skills or providing a balanced curriculum, end up trying to focus on things that occur on given tests. While this is not a huge problem with the SAT itself, it is a serious problem with subject tests like the SAT 2s, AP Exams, and the British A-Levels. This undermines the provision of education in the country. |
teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission | Standardized tests are arbitrary Standardized tests are inherently arbitrary. They reduce an applicant’s entire academic career to a single one-day session. The result is an inherently unrepresentative test which fails to paint an accurate picture. What if a student has a bad day? What if they do poorly on the specific test questions? In the SAT’s there is an error of measurement of about 30 points either way out of 800, this is the potential difference between where the student really is and what his or her score on the day was. [1] By contrast, looking at their entire academic record ensures that admissions officers will get a far more comprehensive picture of their actual ability. The law of averages means that bad days and tests will be balanced out with good ones, with the result that their academic record, the result of years of work, will reflect their true performance. [1] Cloud, John, ‘What’s Good about the New SAT Test’, Time, 1 September 2006, |
teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission | A student’s academic record tends to measure very different things from what a standardized test does. GPA tends to be based on repetitive assignments such as homework, and in many cases students receive at least some academic credit for simply attending class. By contrast, standardized tests reward ability, by seeing whether or not at the end of the process students actually learned the material in question. Performance under pressure is an important skill to measure, especially for top institutions, while sifting through the differing standards for what goes into the grades in different school districts is simply not possible. |
teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission | There is a degree of hypocrisy in arguing that the tests are classist and racist and then complaining that schools take too long in preparing students for them. Ideally the tests should be on relevant subjects that will be useful to the student and is needed as part of a well-rounded education that prepares the student for life, and if they are not they are flawed. Many of the skills required for a successful performance on A-Levels or on the AP Essays are remarkably similar to those needed for University level written work. As a consequence it is wrong to argue they are of no relevance. |
teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission | All measurements are to one degree or another arbitrary. If necessary the scale can be increased, or there can be movement towards a more essay-based exam like the British A-Levels rather than the current multiple-choice format. These changes in fact have already been made with the transformation of the SAT in 2006 which increased the maximum score from 1600 to 2400 and added an essay. [1] [1] Cloud, ‘What’s Good about the New SAT Test’, 2006 |
teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission | Standardized tests discriminate against minorities Minority students perform less well on tests like the SAT, even when correction is made for income. The test with its reading comprehension test and being done in English is obviously biased against students from households where English is not the dominant language as they are much less likely to understand the questions. Even when English language skills are not a problem the question choice can contain a cultural bias. One analogy question on the 2003 SAT used the word “regatta” which minority students were unlikely to be familiar with. Having this kind of bias is obviously unfair and can never be fully accounted for in a diverse country such as the United States of America where those who set the wording of the questions will never know all possible perspectives. |
teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission | Standardized tests exaggerate small differences in performance Most tests were designed in an earlier era when far fewer students took them. The large number of students who now take tests like the SATs results in a situation in which the scoring scale magnifies small differences in performance into large differences in scores. Two questions wrong out of 80 on the math section of the SAT may well produce a score of 760 while three questions wrong will result in a 720. 40 points can mean difference between admission and rejection for many candidates, while telling us nothing about the different abilities of the students involved. Indeed on average for 88% of applicants their SAT score will predict their final college grade rank no more accurately than a pair of dice. [1] [1] Elert, Glenn, ‘The SAT Aptitude of Demographics?’, 5 May 1992, |
teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission | Applicants are not the same. They come from different backgrounds, attend different schools, and have different opportunities. It is “false meritocracy” to compare them with students from an entirely different background. Students should be examined individually, and their performance compared with other students with a similar background. The best way to do this is to allow individual schools to grade their student body, and to then have Universities compare how those students did vis-à-vis their peers within that school. |
teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission | Alternative factors that can be considered in the admissions process SATs are mathematical and it is therefore possible to objectively evaluate them. This is why they are so popular, they provide a benchmark of comparison across the whole education system in a way that any non-standardized assessment never could. This does not only benefit universities in providing an objective measure to compare admissions candidates but it also gives the government statistics with which to measure the progress of schools. Any other form of assessment would mean switching to much more subjective factors. Traditionally such factors, such as extracurricular activities, volunteer work, and even access to references are all more easily available to high income students. Opportunities may not even be offered in poorer school districts. Complaining that poorer and minority students do less well on the SAT ignores the fact that the test provides one of their best opportunities to impress admissions officials. |
teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission | It is the only single standard that everyone ends up taking All measures applied during University admissions processes are arbitrary to one extent or another. Grades depend on the whims on individual instructors, curriculum choices, and school quality. Every single one of the flaws the proposition applies to the SATs or other standardized tests may well be true, but the fact is that they are true for everyone who takes them. The SATs are the only part of the application to a university that every single applicant will likely have been taken, and therefore the only one where all applicants can be objectively compared. |
teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission | The objectivity of SATs does not matter to individual students, many of whom are discriminated against by the tests. Subjective factors can be comparative if students’ backgrounds are taken into account. By contrast, the SAT, by its very use and existence, legitimizes its results as an “objective” measure of ability and capacity, which in turn legitimizes schools in discriminating against the vast majority of poor students who do worse on the exam, even if it helps a few out on an individual level. It would be much better to offer preferences in admission to poorer students than to legitimize discrimination. Subjective criteria can also be successful in determining how successful someone will be in university. In a 1972 study by psychologist Jonathan R. Warre it was found that “Motivation was the quality most frequently cited by over 3400 college teachers” when asked what it takes to succeed in college. [1] Motivation cannot be objectively measured. [1] Elert, ‘The SAT Aptitude of Demographics?’, 1992 |
education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing | None of these benefits apply if the peer pressure simply switches to harder drugs which are harder to test for or less likely to be tested for. Moreover, peer pressure can exist outside of schools, and amongst older teenagers who have the choice to vary their attendance of sixth forms, FE colleges or senior high schools. Random drug testing could lead to older children being pressured to cut classes for prolonged periods of time, in order to take drugs, in order to be thought of as cool. Teenagers are also notorious for believing that “nothing bad can happen to me”, even if that bad thing becomes more likely (such as being caught with a random drugs test). This is demonstrated by the fact that many teenagers already engage in illegal drug use despite the reasonably high chances that an adult will see them using drugs, smell smoke or notice the drug's effects on them in the status quo. [1] [1] Grim, Ryan. “Blowing Smoke: Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use”. Slate. March 21, 2006. |
education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing | School's duty of care Peer pressure drives most drug use among children and teenagers. [1] The fact that the state requires all children to be engaged in education means that most of them will be gathered into large groups in schools for most of the day, five days a week, essentially creating the necessary conditions for peer pressure to take place and be powerful. This occurs as some children face ostracism or exclusion from their peers in the social environment that the state compels them to be in if they refuse to take illegal drugs, if drug use is deemed necessary to be 'cool' or 'popular'. It is, generally, the state that operates a western liberal democracy’s education system. Under circumstances in which children are placed into the care of the state, and are made vulnerable to peer pressure the state has a duty to ensure that children are not coerced into using drugs. This means that concerns of 'privacy' are secondary to protecting the choice not to take drugs, as ensuring the 'privacy' of all students by not having random drug tests empowers some students to socially coerce other students into using drugs when they otherwise would not. Random drug tests help prevent cultures or norms of drug-taking (by which it can become the 'cool' thing to do) by ensuring that most drug users will be caught and helped to quit, thus protecting the choice of others not to be pressured into drug use. [1] Rosenbaum, Marsha. “Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs”. Drug Policy Alliance. January 1, 2007 |
education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing | Students who do not use illegal drugs do have something to fear - the violation of privacy and loss of dignity caused by random drug tests. They may well feel that they are being treated as under suspicion with no evidence or cause, and resent this imposition upon their privacy. Indeed, the indignity of drugs testing may compel children who are already in a position of vulnerability as a result of social marginalisation or personal or family problems to drop out of school entirely. |
education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing | Prevent drug use There is a clear and present problem with drug use among children and teenagers in many countries. According to the UK Department of Health, in 2002-2003 38% of 15 year olds had used illegal drugs, as had 8% of 11 year olds [1] . The fact that all of these children would have been in schools at the age of 15 shows that current policies of targeting the supply train of drugs (for example by arresting drug dealers and intercepting drug shipments) is failing to protect children. Therefore a more direct approach that intervenes at the point of consumption is needed, most crucially for children and teenagers, as their years in education are crucial for both their personal development and their realization of their future education and employment potential. Drug use at a young age may lead to lifelong use and addiction. Random drug testing in schools will allow for vulnerable children's drug problems to be discovered, and assist the state in getting them the help they need to get off drugs. Random testing is especially valuable in this scenario because many infant and teenage drug users will try to disguise their drug use from parents and teachers and so avoid detection through avoiding suspicion, a tactic which will prove of no use against random drug tests which will likely affect all students at one point or another. It should also deter many students from starting taking drugs in the first place as the prospect of them being caught becomes far more likely, as they know disguising their drug use will be of no use. [1] Department of Health. “Statistics on young people and drug misuse: England, 2003”. |
education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing | Drug users' decisions are influenced by an irrational desire to fulfil the chemical need they feel (to get their 'high'). As a consequence many drug users in schools will simply look for ways to evade drug testing regimes that are put in place. This is a problem as drug testing is most likely to catch cannabis users (the most widely-used drug among teenagers) [1] , as cannabis endures longer in the body than other more dangerous drugs such as heroin and cocaine. This can potentially lead would-be cannabis users to switch to these harder drugs, most of which generally have significantly shorter detection times and/or are less likely to be tested for. [2] This harm clearly outweighs the benefits of catching or deterring a few more cannabis users. [1] Department of Health. “Statistics on young people and drug misuse: England, 2003”. [2] Rosenbaum, Marsha. “Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs”. Drug Policy Alliance. January 1, 2007 |
education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing | No harm to non-drug users Random drug tests will pose no harm to students who do not use illegal drugs, as they have nothing to fear from this fact being certified. If anything it serves as a vindication of their law-abidance and good character. Random drug tests will only catch those who are actively taking drugs, as tests can be used which are unlikely to make a 'positive' reading from secondary exposure (for example, being near someone else smoking cannabis). Those actively taking drugs need help in getting off drugs far more urgently than they need their right to 'privacy', as addiction at a young age could have a significant negative impact upon the remainder of their time in education. Therefore, non-drug users have nothing to fear from testing. As a result random checks are in the best interests of drug users. |
education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing | Random drug tests may actually help remove mistrust between teachers and students. Individual suspicion will no longer be the cause of drug tests for students, but rather these tests will be something al students will face at one time or another. This means students may actually feel freer to approach their teachers, and they may feel the need to more keenly, as they know they may be tested at any time. |
education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing | The students in question may not realize the long-term harms of drug use or fully understand the risks of addiction, and as they are not yet fully adult and responsible for themselves, the state has the right to ensure that they do not exercise their 'right to privacy' in a way that could be harmful to them. |
education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing | Keeping teenagers in education Studies in Michigan in the USA have found that random drug tests in schools do not deter drug use, as schools with and without random tests have similar levels of drug use among their pupils. [1] It seems unlikely that random drug tests will, in fact, deter students from taking drugs. What such tests will result in, however, is a greater number of exclusions and disciplinary actions resulting from catching student drug users, which as the studies have shown has no guarantee of lowering drug use overall. Faced with a situation of continuing to be caught and reprimanded for drug use in school due to random drug tests, many older teenagers who reach the age whereby they may choose to leave school may choose to do so in greater numbers. This may well be compounded by an adolescent desire to rebel and reject authority when it tries to prevent them doing what they want, and so a greater number of teenage students may drop out of school so as to allow themselves to continue doing what they want more easily – that is, taking drugs. Leaving school at such an age for no other reason than to pursue a drug-using lifestyle is almost certainly more harmful than the worst-case alternative, whereby they at least remain in education even if they continue to use illegal drugs, comparatively improving their future career and education choices. Simply driving teenagers out of education with random drug tests benefits no-one. [1] Grim, Ryan. “Blowing Smoke: Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use”. Slate. March 21, 2006. |
education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing | Safeguarding the teacher-student relationship Random drug tests change the student-teacher relationship from one of trust into one of suspicion, whereby the teachers and the school establishment become a body which many students will perceive as being out to catch them, and suspicious of all. The destruction of this trust makes it far harder for teachers to impart useful information on illegal drugs and the consequences of their use to students, and students may be less willing to seek teachers out on this information. This would lead to students relying increasingly on their peers and the internet for information on illegal drugs, and this information is far more likely to be of questionable policy or influenced by notions of drug use as 'cool' or glamorous. Thus schools' anti-drugs message may be harmed by random drug tests. |
education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing | Right to privacy Even if a right to privacy (which would prevent random drug testing with no reason for suspicion) does not exist in law in every country, many students being affected by drugs tests will perceive that the notional right to privacy which they believe they possess is being violated. Because they would perceive this violation as a harm, it should not be imposed without good reason. This problematizes the nature of 'random' testing, which by definition means forcing drug tests on individuals on whom there is no reasonable suspicion of drug use. Firstly, the majority of those being tested will most likely test negative (as the previously cited statistics suggest) and so a majority will be harmed for no fault of their own, but rather as a consequence of the crimes of others. This may be seen as the equivalent of searching all homes in a neighbourhood for an illegal weapon on the suspicion that one of them was hiding it -an action which would be illegal in almost every western liberal democracy. Further, however, even if students do engage in illegal drug use, random drug tests will additionally catch only those on whom there was previously no suspicion against (as students who show signs of drug use are already usually tested). In order to not already be under suspicion, these drug-using students would have to be engaging in their education, not disrupting the education of others, and not displaying erratic or harmful behaviour. As they are not actively harming others, these students should be subject only to the same standards as individuals in other areas of society: to only have their privacy violated by drugs tests if their behaviour actively brings them under suspicion. |
education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing | Using random drug tests would mean that a greater number of teenage drug users would be caught and put into drug rehabilitation programs, which would surely help at least some of them. The school's duty of care means that they must at least be given this chance to give up drugs, even if they refuse it, as opposed to simply allowing them to keep using, which will most likely disrupt their education severely anyway. |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | Schools already have enough pressures just to educate their students, they do not need additional pressure from having to ensure their nutrition as well. In the UK kitchen improvements cost £200 million and many local councils found they needed to take money from other budgets such as school maintainance budgets showing the increase in pressure on schools. [1] [1] BBC News, ‘Q&A; Free school meals for infants’, 2 September 2014, |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | Schools are best places to ensure good nutrition Education is universal from 5 or 6 to 16 years old in most countries, 58% of children worldwide attend secondary school, [1] with even poor countries providing education for all from 5 to 12 years old. As a result giving breakfast at school will mean that all children between these ages receive it. [1] Unicef, ‘58: The percentage of children of secondary school age worldwide who attend secondary school is 58’, Unicef global databases, 2008, |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | Exactly, the role of the school is to teach children, not to be providing food and using periods of time for this that could be used for lessons. |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | A school breakfast gives all students an equal start to the day All children should have equal opportunities, a breakfast for all helps provide this. With schools providing breakfast for everyone the start to the day will be the same for all. No one will starting school hungry or thirsty. Everyone will have had a chance to wake up before their lessons start allowing them to get as good a start to the day as possible. |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | This will not be true equality. Some people naturally wake up earlier, yet many will still be feeling sleepy at 10:00. A school breakfast may have forced these students to be up even longer before their natural wake up time than would otherwise be the case. |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | There is no need for education about a healthy diet to be combined with free breakfasts for all. The teaching can be done separately just as effectively. Teaching at the same time as, or immediately before or after will simply mean students are concentrating on the food they have, not upon the lesson. Meal times are lively and social, not a good time for teaching. |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | A healthy breakfast improves students concentration Children are in school to learn. To do this they need to concentrate. To be able to concentrate they need to have a balanced meal – one without too much sugar – that will ensure they are not hungry until lunchtime. A child who is hungry is not going to be concentrating on their studies. A study by the Indian National Institute of Nutrition has shown a regular breakfast to result in a 2% increase in test scores in addition to other health benefits. [1] [1] Gajre, N.S., Fernandez, S., Balakrishna, N., and Vazir, S., ‘Breakfast Eating Habit and its Influence on Attention-concentration, Immediate Memory and School Achievement’, National Institute of Nutrition, 31 March 2008, |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | Breakfast teaches about health Children need to learn about how good nutrition keeps them healthy. Providing a school breakfast means that the meal can be an educational experience and have teaching alongside. This education will ensure that when these children grow up they continue to eat healthily with future benefits for the nation’s health. |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | The upfront cost will be paid back. In the future there will be less health care costs. And there will be a more highly educated and skilled population which will mean more economic growth and tax for the government. |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | The split in responsibility under this proposal is clear; school provides breakfast, parents other meals. This split ensures that even if the parent is shirking their responsibility the child will receive some nutrition. |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | Government should focus on the most needy A primary responsibility of the government is for reducing inequality and ensuring that everyone has a basic living standard. A basic living standard includes food. As a result providing breakfasts should be for those who are most in need of a helping hand from government. Those who are wealthier and can afford their own breakfast do not need this help so any such breakfast policy should be means tested to only apply to those who need it. This is the case with the United States School Breakfast Program. |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | Can we be sure a school meal will be healthy? Even if the schools provide breakfast can we be sure that it will be healthy, and even if it is will the students eat it? Without individual supervision that having breakfast with parents provides it is difficult to ensure that the children are eating what they should be rather than throwing away the bits they like. In the UK there has been a campaign against the poor quality of school meals. [1] In the US there has been concern at the amounts of fresh fruit and vegtables being thrown away from school means. One study by the University of Vermont found food waste increased 56%. [2] [1] Evening Standard, ‘Unhealthy school meals are on the menu for over a million children’, 12 January 2013, [2] Welch, Ashley, ‘School lunch fruits and veggies often tossed in trash study finds’, CBSnews, 25 August 2015, |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | A school breakfast for all is a greater cost on schools Everything costs. Providing free school to all breakfasts will cost the government money for ingredients, cafeteria staff, administration, even possibly new facilities. In the USA the Breakfast Program costs $3.3 billion to provide free or reduced price breakfasts to 10.1 million students. [1] There is a limited total amount of money so the cost will mean there is something else the government will not be able to do. This proposal may mean, for example, that the government cannot afford to hire more teachers to reduce class sizes. [1] Food and Nutrition Service, ‘The School Breakfast Program’, September 2013 |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | Nutrition is the parents responsibility Parents are responsible for their children, and this includes responsibility for their meals. The parent has had to provide meals up until the start of school. They know their own child’s preferences there is little reason for this to change. Splitting responsibility between parents and schools means the burden of responsibility will no longer be clearly don't placed. |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | If the school is providing unhealthy meals then guidelines can be tightened to ensure they improve. If the students are throwing away food then there can be greater supervision by teachers. A study by Harvard University has also shown that food waste, and the amount of healthy food eaten can be increased by having more time allocated to eating. [1] [1] Wanjek, Christopher, ‘Are Healthy School Lunch Programs a Waste?’, Livescience, 7 October 2015, |
primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0 | Focusing on need requires that the need be defined and those in need identified. It runs the risk that some people will be missed. A child having a wealthy parent does not mean that they are getting a good healthy breakfast at the start of the day. That parent may never be home in the morning, may consider breakfast unimportant, or simply be neglecting their child. |
national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster | The international legal system already has many grey areas and often things that should be banned are not because of objections by certain countries despite their similarities to other items that are banned. A change regarding cluster bombs is not realistically going to make more people accept the international legal system. Further, according to the exact wording of the 1997 ban on land mines, the ban exists for those items that exist to “Primarily” act as land mines. Cluster bombs act as landmines as a secondary effect and are not intended to do so. As such, it would be more inconsistent under the law to accept cluster bombs as landmines than it would be to ban them.5 |
national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster | Cluster Bombs Are Inconsistent With International Law The international legal system is dependent on being robust and transparent in order for it to be respected by countries and states that accept it. The refusal by the U.S. to ban cluster bombs prevents the international community from doing the same within international law as the U.S. has enough political power that should it choose to ignore the law, the law itself is considered to be irrelevant. In failing to ban cluster bombs the U.S. maintains an inconsistency within international law. Since dud cluster bombs effectively act as land mines for all intents and purposes, they are well hidden and cause indiscriminate damage, the fact that they aren’t banned is inconsistent with existing bans on land mines already. This inconsistency within international law makes the international legal system seem less credible, owing to contradictions as well as illustrating its weakness to the influence of the U.S. This makes it more difficult for countries to enforce the rules of the international legal system, such as preventing human rights violations because fewer countries will accept international law as being legitimate and will not agree to subject themselves to those rules.5 |
national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster | The U.S. is currently developing cluster bomb technology that will prevent cluster bombs from remaining armed over a long period of time. Given that the U.S. is a pioneer in this area, it knows more about the development of the technology than other countries that might have signed up to the treaty. If the efforts of the U.S. prove to be fruitful then their decision to avoid the ban will prove them as being the more politically shrewd of other liberal democracies. Further, political status with other countries is unlikely to be entirely determined by treaties regarding cluster bombs. In fact these treaties are relatively minor and have almost no political affect by comparison to more pressing issues such as economics or other parts of international policy.7 |
national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster | Cluster Bombs Cause Unacceptable Harm to Civilians In a modern warfare scenario, the vast majority of combat takes place in civilian areas, such as cities. Whilst cluster bombs are obviously not used for peacekeeping purposes they are used in initial assaults on these areas, particularly against larger formations of enemy troops. This means that due to the indiscriminate nature of cluster bombs, in the same way as with land mines, often both military and civilian targets are encompassed in the blast radius. This is what happened in Zagreb as Martic was targeting Croat forces but the attack due to the use of cluster weapons also killed civilians. Further, cluster bombs often have a few bomblets which are duds and do not go on initial impact. The issue with bomblets is that they are often brightly coloured and when used in cities or populous areas they can often attract the attention of children who are very unlikely to know to be careful around them. This can result in significant harm to civilian populations well after the attack has been carried out. Further, due to the sheer volume of duds that cluster bombs put out, attempts to demine cluster bomb bomblets is an incredibly dangerous process that in of itself costs lives.1,2,3 |
national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster | Cluster bombs, when used sensibly are used in uninhabited areas to take down military personnel. They are only intended for military targets and collateral damage when attacking military targets is something that is accepted as a regrettable problem in war. Further, cluster bombs are simply a very effective weapon in battles between standing armies in most war. Given that cluster bombs help sides achieve victory quicker and with less resistance, they justify their use in the prevention of strife in the future by causing wars to end quickly as well as enabling assaults on well-defended sites to be performed more smoothly. Due to their niche, cluster bombs will simply be replaced by the military with substitutes that are just as harmful.4 |
national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster | Rejecting the Ban on Cluster Bombs Hurts the international image of the U.S. The U.S. is one of the only remaining Western Liberal democracies to allow the U.S. of cluster bombs. The continued refusal of the U.S. to tow the same line as fellow liberal democracies makes it look bad internationally; especially considering that one of the main instigators behind the cluster bomb ban is the U.K. traditionally a great ally of the U.S. politically. The U.S. is often seen as the greatest representative of Western liberal democracy as it is the most economically powerful. Part of this political clout however, comes from the continued cooperation of other Western Liberal democracies with the U.S. in failing to the sign the cluster bomb treaty despite pressure from other countries, the U.S. fails in this capacity and loses the support of the countries that it relies on to maintain its political status. Moreover, given that the U.S. currently does not help with demining work, this further worsens relationships with other countries.6 |
national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster | The improvement of cluster bombs in the way that opposition describes has not happened yet and these bombs have not been deployed. It would be fairly easy to class these new cluster bombs differently to older models should they come into effect. However, the potential for new types of cluster bombs does not mean that the older types are any less inhumane. A ban on cluster bombs could easily exist to simply encompass older models whilst leaving newer ones alone.11 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.