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

[Sestak]

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to move career courses down to just one grade in high school minimum. While it was argued in the previous thread that some students will be more scholastically oriented, ensuring that they take career courses provides them with valuable skills they need in the real world, no matter what route they take after graduating.

I do agree with expanding science, especially if math is also already covered in grades 1-12.

How about we set a minimum of two years?

I don't think we should be consistently forcing academically-oriented students to take one fewer academic class. Also, in an increasingly digital world, I'd argue that the mandatory year of CS also doubles as a career elective.

Concur with science and CS expansion. I also strongly support mandatory economics in the curriculum.

[Sestak]

It feels a little weird seeing this new order of "A through G" minimum requirements, considering the UC system uses a different "A through G" for admissions:

History/social science (“a”)
English (“b”)
Mathematics (“c”)
Laboratory science (“d”)
Language other than English (“e”)
Visual and performing arts (“f”)
College-preparatory elective ("g")

Obviously if we were to reorder them we'd have to set F and G to the career class and CS.

[Sestak]

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

[Sestak]

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

[Sestak]

I'd change history to mandatory 1-10, while mandating that at least three mandatory years need to focus on Atlasian history and three years on world, with one year of each in high school.

[Sestak]

Ugh okay hang on.

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

[Sestak]

Ugh I'd prefer 3 years but whatever.

I guess I oppose this now.

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

[Sestak]

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

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

[Sestak]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sestak]

Wait technically fhtagn could just choose not to withhold funding if we only flout one small part of the requirements, right?