NationStates Jolt Archive

***Has Been Modified***

Expansion of Free Education Resolutions 3 and 28
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Arturistania

Description: Recognizing that access to free education is a fundamental human right and,

Also recognizing that most educational cirriculums are theoretically completed by the time a child turns 19 and,

Understand the importance of a strong education system to help alleviate socio-economic disparity,

Acknowledging the importance of education for economic growth and development and,

Recognizing the requirement of a post-secondary education degree for most forms of employment and,

Concerned about the rapid rise of tuition levels continues to make post-secondary education too expensive for low-income earners and,

Recognizing that the lack of ability of qualified applicants to attend post-secondary due to inability to pay perpetuates the wealth disparity of a nation and,

Realizing the importance of post-secondary education for economic growth in a modern economy,

Recalling Resolution #3: Education for All passed by the UN on 8, January, 2003, and Resolution #28: Free Education passed by the UN on 19, August, 2003,

The United Nations Affirms that:

1. Every child up to and including the age of 19 has the right to a free education below the post-secondary level

2. Adults seeking to attain primary and secondary education have the right to affordable access to quality education of this level

3. Nations should provide access to post-secondary education institutions to all qualified applicants who are unable to afford it

4. Nations should reform student loan programs in order to completely pay for the tuition of the applicant with the condition that repayment of the loan begins one year after completion of the applicant's degree

5. Access to affordable post-secondary education for all qualified applicants, regardless of ability to pay, be deemed a fundamental human right

Despite the fact that repeals are still allowed, last I heard you still could not post amendments to existing resolutions. This might be fine if you didn't mention Resolution 3 (or 28, did you forget that one?), but posting it as an amendment will most likely result in deletion of the proposal (and probably kicking the nation out of the UN).

Now, game mechanics aside ...

There is no such thing as FREE education

Somebody pays for the school buildings
Somebody pays for teacher salaries
Somebody pays the utilities
Somebody pays for training
Somebody pays for books and materials

Who? You do. It comes from the government, which is a parasitic organ on the body politic, with no income other than yours.
Description: Recognizing that access to free education is a fundamental human right and,
Despite having TWO resolutions to this effect, it's still SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

Slow down there for a second.

The author just posted an idea looking for constructive feedback.

Their proposal isn't an amendment, but looks more like it just reaffirms and builds upon what has already been done.

The question as to whether or not what is in place is good, would be the subject of a repeal. The question as to whether or not a free education is feasible, is more like an actual debate.

While I understand the desire to discuss things, a group of people recently told me on NSWiki (paraphrased) if you don't like something, make a constructive suggestion. Of course, I told that group that there wasn't anything I saw that could be worked with ... and sadly that group seemed to feel I was wrong, but I don't see how that situation is different than making suggestions on proposals.

With that in mind, I do feel the author did not advertise this proposal as an amendment, and I don't see any need to repeal those resolutions to continue with this idea.

That said, I actually am a bit wary of getting involved in another UN Educational role process without first going back to the proposal that Hersfold and I tabled long ago. Our proposal, would clearly be illegal by the new rulings that say that committees are staffed by imaginary people and do imaginary work and are never seen or heard from again. But the idea of setting up a fund (something Hersfold and I worked on), is something that I think would be interesting.

Unfortunately when the ruling came down that committees are basically pointless for roleplaying, I deleted my electronic copy of the UNEC II proposal. I do have a hard copy and if you (Arturistania) would like, I'd be happy to type the portions of it that are still legal. You might be able to take portions from that idea and still work with the education topic. The topic itself is something we've not discussed in the UN since Spring, and I honestly feel there is enough turnover that it could stand to be revisited. :) (Meaning anything you copy and paste / rework from the old UNEC II proposal you'd do with my blessing.)

Mmmm, yeah, amendments aren't allowed, you should submit this without references to the previous resolution and making sure you don't contradict anything therein.

Mmmm, yeah, amendments aren't allowed, you should submit this without references to the previous resolution and making sure you don't contradict anything therein.

Um, there is no ruling that says that you can't make a reference to a prior resolution, and yet there are a small handful of resolutions that make note of prior resolutions.

The reason to do this (and it happens in the real UN all the time) is so you can continue to pass new laws without having to do the same justifications and actions of the previous resolution.

In this case, the author is assuming that curious voters will look at the resolution he / she mentioned and can instead focus on "expanding" the resolution (which is what he or she said).

I'd be happy to go back and cite all of the previous resolutions that have had references to prior resolutions, but before any ruling is made here, I really think it is approaching time to really take a hard look at just how restrict UN resolution rules are becoming:

- No references to anything remotely real (reports or places / people / things / events).

- Committees are estentially powerless and assumed to be staffed on an imaginary budget by imaginary people loyal only to the UN and never actually do anything.

- Resolutions can never single out either a sub-set of UN members nor even do anything like holding conventions ... follow through is strickly verboten!!!

- Resolution categories must be single focused, and while a case can often be made for multiple categories, proposals are viewed by moderators and if they feel that your say "Social Justice" is a "Human Rights" you can be starting over again.

- Amendments are no longer allowed (which isn't as big a deal since repeals were instituted).

Add to this the new belief that UN resolutions should take into account (according to some) all of the possible multi-verse / technology variants in play ...

There is no such thing as FREE education


Of course not. Somebody always pays. Whether it's through a government organization or a company.

However, this is probably not what was meant. What is meant is, that there should be no fees for education. Now, somewhere people still have to pay, but access to education is not restricted by (high) fees. Income is than no longer an issue for education. How it's paid for, is down to the national government.

Now, for the proposal. Apart from:
4. Nations should reform student loan programs in order to completely pay for the tuition of the applicant with the condition that repayment of the loan begins one year after completion of the applicant's degree
which we consider too detailed for a UN resolution, we agree with this resolution and do not see any violation of UN rules. It builds upon older resolutions, expanding but not amending them.

Um, there is no ruling that says that you can't make a reference to a prior resolution, and yet there are a small handful of resolutions that make note of prior resolutions.Thats not the point, because its a case of amending, and the referances made here are in referance to making expansions and amendments.

Thats not the point, because its a case of amending, and the referances made here are in referance to making expansions and amendments.

That doesn't make sense, and I hope you can see that. But let me explain ... if the resolution is ruled OK by the Unfree People if you remove the reference to prior resolutions, then the issue isn't the content of the resolution, but the reference.

But let's ignore that for now ... how does it make a reference to amend, as in change or alter, the previous resolution?

My thought is that several of you are having knee-jerk reactions to the authors use of the word "expansion", but I've got news for you ... we've done this many times with prior resolutions. What was that "Sexes Right" resolution about? In part it expanded upon Gay Rights and other human rights issues.

I call these knee-jerk reactions, because I'm convinced that based on arguments raised about that reference that had the author not billed this as an expansion many of you would be instead saying, "Dude, we already did this." When I look at the text, I see that this proposal goes into more detail.

Again, I'm not saying I'm for it, but I do think several of you aren't being helpful and aren't really analyzing the proposal with a bias against a word (in this case "expansion").

This is not an amendment to resolution 3 but rather a new resolution to build upon existing commitments by the UN. I did realize after the fact that I failed to cite Resolution 28 and when I put the modified version of this on the proposal list it will site that resolution as well.

Resolution 3 says education should be free for everyone upto the age of 16. Resolution 28 says education should be free for everyone up to the age of 18.

This resolution is simply saying, looking back on these two resolutions, let's expand the required education nations should provide to their citizens and declaring access to post-secondary education for all qualifed applicants regardless of ability to pay should be a human right.

I am not amending previous resolutions, I am reminding nations of their commitments under resolution 3 and 28 and now saying that building upon this let us now take these principles and move them forward.

I do have a proposal to repeal Resolution 43 because I feel it needs to be amended. Since I can not amend it I included in the proposal the shortcomings of Resolution 43 and what needs to be in place in order to create a better framework for how euthanasia should be legal. That is not an expansion but an amendment and I am doing it in a form of appeal.

This resolution is clearly building upon previous nation commitments and saying lets move foward with the idea that governments should provide more access to education for all citizens. I know the difference is a bit technical but it is a fundamental difference.

***Has Been Modified***

2. Adults seeking to attain primary and secondary education have the right to affordable access to quality education of this level


Thanks for that above explanation ... I don't think any of us could have done a better job! :)

I am highlighting the above provision, because this hasn't been mentioned, but I think is actually a strong selling point that has not really been addressed in the past UN resolutions focusing on educational rights.

I also agree with your classification of your proposal as a "Social Justice" issue, since you are seeking to actually provide low cost education to all.

Thank you Mikitivity. I appreciate any further comments from any of you, this is the first UN resolution I have written (there are 2 other currently up for comments on this board as well, one to repeal resolution 43 and one to build on resolution 10) and I appreciate any comments so that I can write better ones in the future.

Mikitivity, I would be glad to look at the proposal you had drafted earlier. Perhaps we could co-draft a more comprehensive resolution that could put this issue to rest once and for all?

Understand the importance of a strong education system to help alleviate socio-economic disparity,

Acknowledging the importance of education for economic growth and development and,

Recognizing the requirement of a post-secondary education degree for most forms of employment and,

Concerned about the rapid rise of tuition levels continues to make post-secondary education too expensive for low-income earners and,

...

The United Nations Affirms that:

4. Nations should reform student loan programs in order to completely pay for the tuition of the applicant with the condition that repayment of the loan begins one year after completion of the applicant's degree

5. Access to affordable post-secondary education for all qualified applicants, regardless of ability to pay, be deemed a fundamental human right


I hear so much about how "without a university degree you can't get anywhere in life." This is not true. By ensuring that more people will have a University degree, you're going to be assuring that those people are paid less. University is something that keeps you above other applicants of a job. This isn't necessarily a good thing. Do we really want so many doctors around, that some end up working at McDonald's because they can't find a doctor job?

I realize that this is an exageration, but it is also something we see to a lesser degree in our world. Less than 50 % of post-secondary graduates end up using the degree they get, because there just aren't the jobs and its so easy to get a degree that people get one without really wanting it or wanting to base a career around it. Right now, there are so many business students that in a few years, it is going to be almost valueless. By lessening the challenges of University, you're lessening the value of a university education. Also, by increasing the number of students, you're increasing the GPA needed to get in, and you really haven't made university more accesible to the average person.

Finally, there are many, many successful people out there with out postsecondary education. So many people are going into university, that the trades are an excellent thing to be considering right now. All the trades men are retiring. By making University even more accessible, you are decreasing the number of trades men, thereby increasing the ammount they will charge, and increasing the burden on an average family. The University is a research facility, and by increasing the number of post-secondary students, in the short run you're increasing the ammount of money academics have and reducing the money the middle class has. And in the long run, everyone will be middle class.

It's time we realized that Post secondary education isn't the be all end all. Hight school education is important, and the fact that it is a human right is fair. But university is a step too far.

Some people chose to go into trades, others into medicine, others into business. This resolution is simply proposing that all qualified applicants for post-secondary education gain access to such education even if they can not afford to pay for it. This measure is designed to allow people from low income families to achieve a post-secondary education if they are accepted into a post-secondary institution. This will not lower the value of education, what it will do is allow people from low-income families who currently can't get a post-secondary education degree because they can not afford to attend an institution to actually attend and achieve that degree. Without such resolutions, the disparity of wealth is merely perpetuated and widened as though in the lower class get low-income jobs because they are unable to pay for a post-secondary degree and those from wealthy families continue to stay wealth because they can obtain a post-secondary degree. It is a fact that those with post-secondary education earn substantially higher incomes than those who do not, higher and higher education levels are being demanded for more jobs, making the well paying jobs inaccessible to children from low-income families who are perfectly qualified to attend a post-secondary institution but cannot afford to pay for it.

Here is a re-typed copy (based on Hersfold's Jul. 17th version which at the time of printing had 56 endorsements) ... I did correct one typo that was in the version I likely gave Hersfold, as it was a standard Miervatian error (our unique German influenced English frequently has errors you don't see in the standard English). ;)


Defining the UNEC

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Hersfold

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

Aware of the passage of its resolution, United Nations Education Committee, adopted April 9, 2004,

1. Defines the roll of the UNEC to include:
a) Providing educational grants to UN member states that request financial help for their education programs,
b) Providing supplies directly to public and/or private education institutions that have applied for supply grants to the UNEC,
c) Evaluating the level of need of all applicants for UNEC assistance, and
d) Monitoring the implementation of its grants and report its findings to this assembly when appropriate;

2. Establishes a United Nations Educational Trust Fund, which will be managed by the UNEC and funded through donations by international, national, and non-governmental sources;

3. Further Defines the voting membership of the UNEC to include:
a) any UN member state which contributes to the United Nations Education Trust Fund, and
b) a number of UN member states, not to exceed 100 seats, as elected by the UN General Assembly to server one-year terms;

4. Recommends two advisory panels to the UNEC, composed of:
a) up to two teachers from each UN member state, and
b) up to two students from each UN member state;

5. Instructs the voting membership of the UNEC to take into consideration all of the recommendations provided by the UNEC advisory panel;

6. Authorizes the UNEC to base the decisions concerning the awarding and continuation of the United Nations Education Trust Fund grants on both the recommendation of the UNEC advisory panel as well as on information collected on the current status of overall quality of the programs that apply for financial aid;

7. Suggests that the evaluation of the current status of the overall quality of educational programs includes a budget analysis of the educational program, student retention, school curriculum and program of study, educational goals of the society in question, and feedback from the students / teachers / administration and representatives of the country applying for the grant;

8. Affirms that the grants provided by the UNEC will only be used for educational purposes, such that if the UNEC has reason to believe the funds or supplies it provides are being used for non-educational programs, the UNEC may vote to suspend the funds upon an investigation, as provided by its monitoring program described above;

9. Acknowledges the inherent right of societies to determine what is best for their children, by taking into consideration the cultural and social needs of the member states and schools that apply to the UNEC;

10. Reaffirms that the financial resources provided by the UNEC should be given out on a need basis, with the nations most in need of assistance given a priority in the UNEC decision making process; and

11. Expresses its hope that in time that nations will be able to supplement the aid provided by the UNEC and that the programs and institutions that apply for UNEC aid may become self-succient.


Hersfold and I brought this to the UN forum, where several others helped hammer out the finer points. Frankly, I consider this to be one of the better documents I've seen. Unfortunately Moderation rulings have been more and more restrictive since August, and I'm highlighting the poritions of the text that would result in an instant Moderation warning and deletion of the proposal.

Obviously others will argue that the entire proposal would violate the no-amendment rule, but believe it or not, but Hersfold, myself, Stephistan, and Cogitation (I think it was Cog who helped up out), managed to reach a consensus on this draft. At the time they green lighted the proposal, after Hersfold was issued a warning (which I was told by one of the moderators was to be removed) because an earlier version used the word amendment in it.

A bit of back story ... Hersfold submitted the UN Educational Committee resolution back around 2004.04.05. At first the resolution had overwhelming support. It did have a few typos, and managed to generate an organized campaign (interestingly enough headed by many socialist nations) that eventually changed many yes votes to no votes, and the resolution passed by only 1.6 ratio in favour. That isn't the closest a UN resolution has passed. In fact I'd argue that is still a respectible margin, but a close one.

Anyway, following that resolution, Hersfold wanted to put forth a better resolution without the problems. And I personally have the greatest respect for that, and we worked on this on and off for a while, until the UN Olympic Committee proposal was deleted from the queue. :( (I can dig up a NS Times story on that, which is interesting to read.)

I'd love to work with you, and perhaps there are pieces of this proposal that can be recycled. The above certainly needs to be changed to meet the new UN rules.

Some people chose to go into trades, others into medicine, others into business. This resolution is simply proposing that all qualified applicants for post-secondary education gain access to such education even if they can not afford to pay for it. This measure is designed to allow people from low income families to achieve a post-secondary education if they are accepted into a post-secondary institution. This will not lower the value of education, what it will do is allow people from low-income families who currently can't get a post-secondary education degree because they can not afford to attend an institution to actually attend and achieve that degree. Without such resolutions, the disparity of wealth is merely perpetuated and widened as though in the lower class get low-income jobs because they are unable to pay for a post-secondary degree and those from wealthy families continue to stay wealth because they can obtain a post-secondary degree. It is a fact that those with post-secondary education earn substantially higher incomes than those who do not, higher and higher education levels are being demanded for more jobs, making the well paying jobs inaccessible to children from low-income families who are perfectly qualified to attend a post-secondary institution but cannot afford to pay for it.

That supports the argument I'm trying to make. In the short term, this resolution will work. People from low income families will be able to afford University. But in the very long term it will devalue a degree. The more people who have something, the less significance it has. It makes you "less special". Furthermore, the marks of the upper middle class are significantly higher in public education than those of the lower middle class. By increasing the GPA (because of an increase in applicants, since more can afford it), there won't really be any change, since the people stuck in the lower income rut will still be stuck there, because of grades, if not money.

But as it stands now, a High School education only is not enough to attain almost any well-paying job. Even people going into trades need to attend a post-secondary education institution of some kind (for example in Canada they attend Community College which still costs a couple thousand dollars a year). Ultimately there is a growing need for post-secondary education in order to be in the competitive pool for a better paying job. The point of this resolution is to allow children from low-income families to get into this pool as well. A High School education is almost worthless if you want to attain a reasonably well paying job. Are there exceptions?-of course but they are exceptions not the norm. Yes it is true that children from wealthier families generally succeed in school more frequently than children from low-income families but there are certainly a significant number of children in low-income families who have the grades but don't have the money. Also keep in mind this, by providing a proper funding structure to allow students from low-income families, this would mean that these students wouldn't need to work 2 or 3 jobs in High School in order to attempt to achieve some means of paying for part of their tuition. By being able to focus more on education in High School, more students from low-income families would perform better and would attain higher marks. Ultimately the nations can help this even more by providing better social welfare for the lower-class, the point of this resolution is provide some framework in order to at least help to lower the wealth disparity and end the perpetual cycle of the lower-class.

That supports the argument I'm trying to make. In the short term, this resolution will work. People from low income families will be able to afford University. But in the very long term it will devalue a degree. The more people who have something, the less significance it has. It makes you "less special". Furthermore, the marks of the upper middle class are significantly higher in public education than those of the lower middle class. By increasing the GPA (because of an increase in applicants, since more can afford it), there won't really be any change, since the people stuck in the lower income rut will still be stuck there, because of grades, if not money.

The idea isn't to be worried about devaluing anything, but providing an equal opportunity to people. The fact that we can agree that the income of the family you are randomly born into has a bearing on your ability to even go to college is the problem, and is why this is a text-book "Social Justice" issue.

The idea__s__ we are discussing are supposed to take away a disadvantage.

This proposal has now been replaced by the Global Education Initiative and is on another thread of this forum.

I don't like your title.

Give us words, not numbers.