User:Semyon/My objections to the education reform

Note that I don't think object to the education reform itself, merely to some flaws I see in the current proposal.
 * 1) I don't agree with parents having to pay for their children's education if their incomes are over a certain amount. $50000 dollars is practically nothing - it's about £14000 per parent which is a very low income - despite what Kunarian said, the proposal clearly says 'collectively' implying that $50000 is the total, which does come to £14000 per parent. Ideally I would prefer education to be free for all income ranges, due to the fundamental importance of education and danger of harming children's education, but I'm willing to compromise by raising the limits on income much higher. Note that implementing the current proposal in primary education is a breach of the UNDHR.
 * 2) Kunarian justified charging immigrants for education by pointing out how easy it is to get citizenship. I don't see that this is relevant, tbh. The point is a resident alien who pays taxes should not have to pay extra for education. Once again, unfree primary education for immigrants is a breach of the UNDHR.
 * 3) There is still no necessity for two fail grades. I wouldn't obstruct the law for this, but it should be changed.
 * 4) It's unnecessary for the government to specify grade boundaries. If 95% is required for an A* every year, then the papers will have to be of identical difficulty every year, which isn't plausible, otherwise it will be unfair to students that have to sit in a harder year. To overcome this difficulty, I suggest a system where the top 5% of students in a year receive an A*, the next 10% an A, etc. (obviously the exact percentages are open to debate). Although Kunarian pointed out that 'students who do well may be pushed down grades under your system just because other students did well too' statistically we can expect each cohort to be of equal intelligence. Out of interest, I modelled this in Excel by randomly generating 3470 (my estimation of the number of students to take an exam every year) 'intelligence scores' between 0 and 100 and finding the average. This was repeated 20 times. Only once did the average deviate by more than one unit from 50, and in most cases it was much smaller. The IB runs their examinations by this system, and it's one of the most reputable programs in the world. I don't insist on it, however; alternatively, exam boards could professionally judge for themselves what boundaries will be each year to adjust for varying difficulty of papers.
 * 5) The SLCE requires a higher score than the LCE to get the same grade. This is unfair, because although Kunarian explained that the SLCE 'requires that it be ensured that someone has actually learned and understood what they've learned more than a standard course as it is shorter and in slightly less detail because of that,' he hasn't taken into account that if a course is shorter and in less detail, one assumes it's taught in proportionally less time, and so the grade boundaries should be the same as the normal course. Look at it this way: the SLCE is of lesser value to the LCE. If it is, an A* for SLCE will be of less value than an A* for LCE, in any case, so there's no need for a higher grade boundary. Alternatively, if an A* is of equal value in both, there's no need for the distinction between the qualifications. I'm afraid I have to insist this is changed.
 * 6) I personally think that one educational board would be enough for such a small country as Lovia. However, I'm not going to insist on this. OOC, I do think that if you expect users to maintain these boards you'll be sorely disappointed; since even ministries are totally inactive. Alternatively, the schools could set their own exams and have them moderated by an external body to ensure fairness (I believe something similar to the latter occurs in Germany). Again, this is merely a suggestion.
 * 7) The word 'supplementary' must be replaced. It's a synonym of 'additional' - it becomes obvious that it's wrong if you replace SLCE with 'Additional Lovian Certificate of Education.' It clearly implies a more advanced course. Kunarian said that 'supplement in this means to supplement a deficiency,' but this definition only applies when the thing in question is not wholly deficient. For example, I would only say I was supplementing the petrol in my tank if there was already some there - once again it's a synonym for 'add.' Again this is something I have to insist on.
 * 8) The law proposes that for Level 3 qualifications at least 30 hours of teaching is necessary. I oppose this strongly, because a 16 year old student should know how to work independently by this stage, outside of a structured classroom environment. In fact, Level 3 courses should require less classroom work than Level 1, because a vast proportion of the course should be done outside the class. If the 16 year old isn't prepared to do this, then they're clearly unsuited for study at this level and should progress straight into the world of work in the form of an apprenticeship. Obviously, I'm not suggesting that apprenticeships are inferior, since there'll equally be those who remain in school who would be completely unsuited to do an apprenticeship, so should remain in school. --Semyon 15:19, September 17, 2013 (UTC)