NationStates Jolt Archive

Title: Educational Mobility
Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational

The United Nations,

REAFFIRMING the sovereign right and responsibility of member nations to decide how best to promote the education of their nationals, as previously established by article 6 of the UN Educational Aid Act (Resolution #171);

RECOGNIZING that students in poor-quality educational institutions can benefit from relocation to better-quality schools, if available;

DISTURBED by the possibility of individuals being restricted from the education of their choice solely due to the location of their habitation;

Hereby:

1. FORBIDS member nations and non-governmental organizations and institutions within member nations to restrict nationals, including children and young adults, from attending the schools of their choice based solely on the location of their habitation;

2. ENCOURAGES member nations to reduce barriers that prevent or discourage nationals from attaining the educations they individually prefer;

3. NOTES that this resolution does not obligate member nations to provide transportation to or payment of tuition for the educational institutions preferred by the nationals;

4. NOTES that this resolution does not obligate educational institutions within member nations to admit nationals as students if they do not otherwise meet the institutions' standards of acceptance.

I haven't submitted this yet, and I'm open to suggestions and discussion.

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

Wouldn't such movement already be covered by the more general "Emigration Rights" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12412273&postcount=199)?

1. FORBIDS member nations and non-governmental organizations and institutions within member nations to restrict citizens from attending the schools of their choice based solely on the location of their habitation;Here they are no citizens until they have finished school from age 5-10 years getting required basic courses... then they have two years of social service before they even become a citizen.. once they are a citizen if they want additional education they go to work and pay for it or find a job that offers additional education.

2. ENCOURAGES member nations to reduce barriers that prevent or discourage citizens from attaining the educations they individually prefer;Here we provide the same basic courses to all our future citizens... all teachers/educators are required to meet the same gualifacations to teach our young future citizens...

3. NOTES that this resolution does not obligate member nations to provide transportation to or payment of tuition for the educational institutions preferred by the citizens;This is why there are schools in every township built for those living there not outsiders.. as the schools are set up based on local polulations of youth needing an education..

4. NOTES that this resolution does not obligate educational institutions within member nations to accept students who do not otherwise meet the institutions' standards of acceptance.If a child reaches 5 then he goes to school unless he is not able due to some disability that keeps him from going to a local school. We have special schools for those who may need them and do not burden our regular schools with students who can't keep up and will only slow down progress for the majority attending. We believe that if you can do something you have a place and we find it for you and put you there... We don't pamper anyone here if you don't like things here move on...

Wouldn't such movement already be covered by the more general "Emigration Rights" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12412273&postcount=199)?

This proposal is less about freedom of movement (sometimes moving from one's home is not feasible, especially for lower-income families), and more about being able to attend schools no matter their location.

Furthermore, Emigration Rights refers only to leaving a state, not moving around within it.

I see several big problems with the mandates in this proposal. First, I can see a huge discrepancy developing in nations where students are allotted money by the state, money that is then used by the schools they attend. If all the students from School A want to attend School B because it's better, School B would then have more money, and School A's pocketbook would get tighter. Can you see where I'm heading?

Secondly, population. In larger cities, it makes sense to have multiple primary and secondary schools to handle the logistics of travel, as well as higher numbers of students. Allowing unfettered choice for students could result in huge student populations in certain areas, and hamstringing schools that weren't quite as popular.

With this scenario, we also get into the debate about income and class. Families with more means will have an easier time getting their students to the schools of their choice; whether it be transportation or something else. Poorer families will be forced to pay for transportation, food, tuition, etc., or go to the smaller, less popular schools.

With the current draft's lack of government funding, some nations will force their citizens to fund everything themselves. Following scenario 2, we get a huge discrepancy in education along income lines. Furthermore, the schools which lose students would be force to cut staff and reduce services to cope with funding shortages, which harms the students in the end.

Of course, most of what I'm talking about applies only to a public school system- and since private schools are basically exempt under the current act (being able to restrict entry with high tuition or admissions requirements), I can only see this as affecting public schools in a negative way.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

OOC: The problems I outlined are actually pretty applicable in my state. There's a huge debate in the US about education right now, and the issues with schools of choice and inner-city schooling arne't going to go away for a while.

I would like to thank Ambassador Shandreth for his well thought-out response.

I see several big problems with the mandates in this proposal. First, I can see a huge discrepancy developing in nations where students are allotted money by the state, money that is then used by the schools they attend. If all the students from School A want to attend School B because it's better, School B would then have more money, and School A's pocketbook would get tighter. Can you see where I'm heading?

Generally, in a nation that funds public schools based on student population, the allocated funding per school should reflect the cost per student, in which case School A is not really losing money at all, since they lose the cost of educating the student in addition to the funding that would pay for him/her.

Of course, this proposal doesn't require nations to fund their school systems along any particular line, as that sort of long-distance micromanaging would almost certainly fail, but presumably they can accomodate the proposal without extreme adjustments to their system.

Secondly, population. In larger cities, it makes sense to have multiple primary and secondary schools to handle the logistics of travel, as well as higher numbers of students. Allowing unfettered choice for students could result in huge student populations in certain areas, and hamstringing schools that weren't quite as popular.

The proposal specifically does not require admittance to the school of the student's choice, but merely eliminates place of living as the sole factor in admittance. With that in mind, a school would not have to overburden itself if its rosters were already full. Furthermore, a school can still give preferential admittance to students living nearby (the proposal's wording only forbids it as a sole determining factor--combining it as a determining factor with a ceiling on the number of admitted students is perfectly fine; that is, out-of-districts students are not forbidden from attending, but in-district students are added to the roster first). This is largely dependent on the sorts of restrictions or controls national governments already have in place.

With this scenario, we also get into the debate about income and class. Families with more means will have an easier time getting their students to the schools of their choice; whether it be transportation or something else. Poorer families will be forced to pay for transportation, food, tuition, etc., or go to the smaller, less popular schools.

Article 2 does encourage the government to reduce barriers to students attending the school of their choice, which could include providing transportation or assisting with meals and tuition (if applicable). I felt that actually mandating government aid in this arena would greatly hamper the proposal's chance at reaching quorum, as well as limiting the scope of its applicable benefits.

With the current draft's lack of government funding, some nations will force their citizens to fund everything themselves. Following scenario 2, we get a huge discrepancy in education along income lines. Furthermore, the schools which lose students would be force to cut staff and reduce services to cope with funding shortages, which harms the students in the end.

Yes, some nations already force citizens to fund education themselves. This proposal does not affect that in either direction, but rather eliminates a single barrier to their choice in education.

As for your second point, if it is indeed government responsibility to decide how best to allocate funding for schools (as implied by a pay-per-student scheme), then it remains the government's responsibility to either aid a failing school or close it down and move its remaining students and staff to either an existing institution, or to a new one to provide for the specific needs of the community in question.

Of course, most of what I'm talking about applies only to a public school system- and since private schools are basically exempt under the current act (being able to restrict entry with high tuition or admissions requirements), I can only see this as affecting public schools in a negative way.

The distinction between public and private schools is not made in this proposal. Some nations charge admittance to "public" schools and some do not allow "private" schools. The terms are opaque and nebulous in the context of internationality.

That said, I don't believe the government's educational duty, if such can be said to exist, is to provide for its teachers, but to provide for its students. The cost and the quality of the education can both be taken into account when trying to improve education, but I believe the income of government employees should be of only secondary concern.

Thanks again for your concerns.

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

1. FORBIDS member nations and non-governmental organizations and institutions within member nations to restrict citizens from attending the schools of their choice based solely on the location of their habitation;


A citizen is, generally, an adult - i.e., someone who no longer goes to "school" (although that would depend on the definition of "school").

Were this resolution to be adopted, my country would, for example, be free to bar any person under the age of 16 from attending certain schools. Which I'm sure isn't what you intended.


2. ENCOURAGES member nations to reduce barriers that prevent or discourage citizens from attaining the educations they individually prefer;


What exactly does this mean (especially when taking into account clause 3)?


http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/674/christophebocobnd6.jpg
Christophe Boco (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christophe_Boco),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

What if the schools actually offer different curriculums? It would be non-sensical for a Whollymudder Territory child to attend a Massayan school as he could not speak Massayan. Our individual territories pride themselves in self-administration in education with the syllabus focused on the territory's culture and heritage.

Also consider the following situation. Family A want to send their child to school x in City X, but they live in City Y on the opposite side of the country. School x has to accept the child. Family A move to city Y. They apply to the local government for housing as they cannot find any. It is immoral to reject a family with a kid in the local school so in effect they are obligated to supply housing too.

A citizen is, generally, an adult - i.e., someone who no longer goes to "school" (although that would depend on the definition of "school").

Were this resolution to be adopted, my country would, for example, be free to bar any person under the age of 16 from attending certain schools. Which I'm sure isn't what you intended.

Hmm, your concern is duly noted, Ambassador Boco. Would you suggest altering the wording from "citizens" to "nationals, including children and young adults"?

What exactly does this mean (especially when taking into account clause 3)?

An encouragement does not obligate. It does just what it says: encourages. We could make the wording stronger if you prefer: Urges, or Strongly Urges, for example, but I don't believe mandating the removal of all barriers to education (given the broad definition of 'barrier') would be as entirely beneficial to all nations given the wide spectrum of ideologies that the United Nations accommodates.

What if the schools actually offer different curriculums? It would be non-sensical for a Whollymudder Territory child to attend a Massayan school as he could not speak Massayan. Our individual territories pride themselves in self-administration in education with the syllabus focused on the territory's culture and heritage.

Would not such a child fail the entrance/qualifying/placement exam or standards and be forced to start education at lower levels, learning Massayan before proceeding with his/her education?

Also consider the following situation. Family A want to send their child to school x in City X, but they live in City Y on the opposite side of the country. School x has to accept the child. Family A move to city Y. They apply to the local government for housing as they cannot find any. It is immoral to reject a family with a kid in the local school so in effect they are obligated to supply housing too.

That sounds more like a loophole in your government's system of judgment than a loophole in the proposal; the proposal does not obligate governments to provide housing. However, it can be dealt with by the nation in question, for example by simply requiring a modicum of evidence of the student's ability to attend the school before granting enrollment.

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

What if the schools actually offer different curriculums? It would be non-sensical for a Whollymudder Territory child to attend a Massayan school as he could not speak Massayan. Our individual territories pride themselves in self-administration in education with the syllabus focused on the territory's culture and heritage.


That, I believe, would be covered by clause 4.


Hmm, your concern is duly noted, Ambassador Boco. Would you suggest altering the wording from "citizens" to "nationals, including children and young adults"?

Yes, that should close the loophole.

An encouragement does not obligate. It does just what it says: encourages. We could make the wording stronger if you prefer: Urges, or Strongly Urges, for example, but I don't believe mandating the removal of all barriers to education (given the broad definition of 'barrier') would be as entirely beneficial to all nations given the wide spectrum of ideologies that the United Nations accommodates.

So essentially clause 2 requests nations to do that which they are not compelled to do in view of clause 3? (This isn't a criticism; I'm trying to understand what exactly clause 2 may refer to.)


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

So essentially clause 2 requests nations to do that which they are not compelled to do in view of clause 3? (This isn't a criticism; I'm trying to understand what exactly clause 2 may refer to.)

Yes, essentially, although it allows more flexibility than a mandate to the same effect, and it would also encourage removal of nonphysical (or non-monetary) barriers, such as legal and cultural barriers.

Some examples of things that the clause might encourage:
-arranging to obtain loans for students from low-income families
-encouraging educational programs cracking down on bigotry or racism that discourages students of certain ethnicity from attending certain schools
-discounted public transportation fees for students

This proposal is less about freedom of movement (sometimes moving from one's home is not feasible, especially for lower-income families), and more about being able to attend schools no matter their location.

Furthermore, Emigration Rights refers only to leaving a state, not moving around within it.Wait. So this is actually an attempt to internationally set local school district policies?

In which case, this contradicts the UN Education Aid Act, article 6:6. Entrusts nations with the right and responsibility to decide on the structure of their public education systems.

If a "school voucher" program (which is essentially what you've outlined) is appropriate to a particular nation, that nation will have already instituted it.

--L.T.

In which case, this contradicts the UN Education Aid Act, article 6:
6. Entrusts nations with the right and responsibility to decide on the structure of their public education systems.
If a "school voucher" program (which is essentially what you've outlined) is appropriate to a particular nation, that nation will have already instituted it.

--L.T.

As I understand "voucher" programs, they involve government grants to attend private institutions. This does nothing of the sort.

As far as article 6 of the UN Education Aid Act goes, this proposal does not affect the structure of public education systems, except by loosening a single barrier in admittance to educational institutions. It imposes much less structural interference than the Reformed Literacy Initiative (which mandates free education for illiterate adults and increased per-student educational spending at an inverse ratio to the mental faculties of students, among other things).

Respectfully,
Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

As I understand "voucher" programs, they involve government grants to attend private institutions. This does nothing of the sort.Voucher programs are not restricted to grants to attend private institutions, but perhaps "open enrollment" is the better description for banning school districting. Both programs spring from the assumption that the answer to bad schools is to flee rather than working with the schools toward improvement.
As far as article 6 of the UN Education Aid Act goes, this proposal does not affect the structure of public education systems, except by loosening a single barrier in admittance to educational institutions. It imposes much less structural interference than the Reformed Literacy Initiative (which mandates free education for illiterate adults and increased per-student educational spending at an inverse ratio to the mental faculties of students, among other things)."Reformed Literacy Initiative" was passed prior to UNEA. Other than the establishment of literacy as a critical goal for all, it makes no demands on the structure or administration of schools, public or private. (Adult literacy programs are not necessarily associated with the normal school system.) UNEA will be controlling with respect to school administration.

And just a side-note, “children with a deficiency in literacy” does not equate to low mental faculties as anyone with dyslexia will be happy to tell you.

--L.T.

As a nation convinced that education is critical to our future, it may surprise Ambassador Strathfield to learn that we are not enamoured. This is on two grounds: first, as Ambassador Talone has already pointed out, the correct response to a school that is considered to be not up to standard is to fix that school, not lower its achievements still further; and second, we would point out the increased environmental costs of the extra distance of the journies undertaken daily to school, which in Gobbannium we cheerfully pass on to the parents of any so selfish as to insist on such. That observation alone would be sufficient for us to reject the encouragement in clause 2.

We concur with the view that this is in contravention of the UN Education Aid Act, which serves to block almost any sane proposal concerning education as well as the majority of insane ones. Even were that not the case, given Ambassador Strathfield's assurances as to what clause 1 does not cover we find the proposal too weak to be of any value in any case.

"Reformed Literacy Initiative" was passed prior to UNEA.

As a side note, if new resolutions supersede existing ones (as in the case of RLI superseding UNEA), then realistically this new resolution could supersede the UNEA.

That said, I'm becoming swayed to forgo my plans to submit this proposal. My thanks to all who've commented on it thus far.

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

I commend the wisdom of the esteemed ambassador.

Jonathan Kozol:
'Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win.' On Being a Teacher

Well done,
Frege Gott

As a side note, if new resolutions supersede existing ones (as in the case of RLI superseding UNEA), then realistically this new resolution could supersede the UNEA.The rules preventing duplication make supersession impossible without repeal and replacement. Perhaps my noting the chronology created the wrong impression. The telling factor is not RLI’s preceding UNEA, but that RLI says nothing about curriculum (other than literacy programs) or school organization/administration. Article 6 of the UNEA reserves all such that hasn’t previously been legislated to the nations.

--L.T.

Please let me just say how happy I am to be apart of Nation States and its UN.:)
Also please forgive me if I step on anyone’s toes or put my foot in my mouth, I welcome any help in improving on how to debate and put an idea in front of everyone.:)

I strongly believe you should keep up with your proposal on Educational Mobility, for I believe you are on to something. Eduction is about learning and if we can not change the guidelines and rules to help improve then what are we learning?

I suggest we have a high standard of education for all schools. Not just the private ones, as they get more funding from the government then the public. I suggest that we have one system for the schools and lose the barriers of public and private. (This is one of Australia’s biggest problems).

I believe you should lose the encourage and make it Mandatory for all nations to have their governments provide/help provide for families that can prove they are in a hardship, as education should be available for every one not just those that can afford it. eg. For those Familles that do have to travel far to get to the schools such as country areas, what if the government were to provide funds to familles that could prove they are in a hardship.

Also what if a board was set up too collect and develop all input (from teachers, parents, students...etc.) and we make it so that all the UN nations have the same school systems. Same Education structure = Same Educated Nations, (so that in general every one has the same chances regardless of how rich or poor a UN nation might be).

The more we learn the more we grow. Knowledge is Power.

Thank you for your time in hearing what I had to say,
Queen Tia Kingston

The rules preventing duplication make supersession impossible without repeal and replacement. Perhaps my noting the chronology created the wrong impression. The telling factor is not RLI’s preceding UNEA, but that RLI says nothing about curriculum (other than literacy programs) or school organization/administration. Article 6 of the UNEA reserves all such that hasn’t previously been legislated to the nations.

--L.T.

Yes, I did misinterpret your argument. My apologies and thanks for the clarification. Hmm... with that in mind, my proposal also says nothing about curriculum, nor school organization and administration, unless you define school organization so broadly as to include defining spheres of influence from which schools are allowed to recruit. But it's difficult to interpret how far the restrictions on UN intervention in education policy should realistically extend, and I'll bow to the majority for the "correct" interpretation.

Please let me just say how happy I am to be apart of Nation States and its UN.:)
Also please forgive me if I step on anyone’s toes or put my foot in my mouth, I welcome any help in improving on how to debate and put an idea in front of everyone.:)

I strongly believe you should keep up with your proposal on Educational Mobility, for I believe you are on to something. Eduction is about learning and if we can not change the guidelines and rules to help improve then what are we learning?

I suggest we have a high standard of education for all schools. Not just the private ones, as they get more funding from the government then the public. I suggest that we have one system for the schools and lose the barriers of public and private. (This is one of Australia’s biggest problems).

I believe you should lose the encourage and make it Mandatory for all nations to have their governments provide/help provide for families that can prove they are in a hardship, as education should be available for every one not just those that can afford it. eg. For those Familles that do have to travel far to get to the schools such as country areas, what if the government were to provide funds to familles that could prove they are in a hardship.

Also what if a board was set up too collect and develop all input (from teachers, parents, students...etc.) and we make it so that all the UN nations have the same school systems. Same Education structure = Same Educated Nations, (so that in general every one has the same chances regardless of how rich or poor a UN nation might be).

The more we learn the more we grow. Knowledge is Power.

Thank you for your time in hearing what I had to say,
Queen Tia Kingston

While I appreciate Queen Kingston's advice and devotion to education, such an intrusive mandate imposed on the management of United Nation member nations would be in explicit violation of The UN Education Aid Act (Resolution #171). It's possible, given the honorable L.T.'s arguments, that even my comparatively modest proposal is too strongly interfering in national educational sovereignty.

Thank you for your understanding of my little knowledge in these political matters.
I have read the Resolution #171 and I can see nothing in there that I disagree with. In Fact I would like to put forth a proposed Addendum to Resolution #171.
I will make a post in regards to this Addendum to Resolution #171.
All feedback is welcomed as we all learn something new each day; we just have to make the conscience effort to accept it.:)

Queen Tia Kingston

Someone who's willing to learn is very welcome here, Queen Tia.

While amending or adding to resolutions happens in real life, it's not part of this game.

Existing resolutions can be changed only by repealing them. That wipes them out completely. Then, if you feel it's required, you put up a new proposal to replace them. Or someone else can. The UN has to vote on the repeal and then vote again on the new proposal, if there is one. There doesn't have to be.

Draft proposals can be amended or added to if the proposer accepts your idea. But once a proposal has been submitted, that's the way it stands, to be accepted or voted down.