NationStates Jolt Archive

(OOC: I'm not sure if this draft is different enough from the Global Education Standards Act draft, to constitute a separate topic or no need of permission from Epigeal. If it's not, then please let me know.

I've attempted to compile all the negatives about the Global Education Standards Act draft, and create a common ground.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Universal Education Standards and Financing Act

NOTICING that the educational standards of many member nations do not meet par with averages,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system that complies with average standards set by existing member nations,

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:

I) MANDATE that every minor, as defined separately by each member nation, shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA average standards, which are to be compiled biennially by a World Assembly Education Committee (WAEC) composed of a representative of each WA member nation.

II) ESTABLISH a universal standard for education:

SUCH a standard for childhood education shall be defined as: a primary education that consists of grammar, mathematics, science and literature, and starts at an age deemed appropriate by each separate WA member nation, and ends when the child in question surpasses the qualification of a minor, as deemed appropriate by each separate WA member nation.

DEFINING grammar as the systems of language of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; science as the acceptable laws and theories of the WA member nation, that explain all aspects of the universe; and literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation.

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING, each separate WA member nation reserves the right to set their own standard above that which is defined in this Act, including, but not limited to, longer primary education, and more expanded curriculum.

III) MANDATE that WA member nations ensure that primary education is provided free of direct cost to children.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

How do nations provide free education? What about poorer countries?

How do nations provide free education? What about poorer countries?
The original proposal mandated a tax, which was the pitfall of that proposal. The general consensus of the non-supporters was that the proposal shouldn't tell nations how to pay for it, but simply to tell them that they have to pay for it.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Ok. Then, can I suggest we should also pass a resolution requiring world peace within 24 hours. I figure it's ok to be iffy on the specifics.

Bear in mind that, thanks to the WA General Fund resolution, the WA now has funding available to it.

We will not support this resolution, a WAEC with thousands of apointed members is a laughable idea which will achieve nothing, and besides we do not like being told how to aportion our education spending. Our nation's revenues are its own and we will do with them as we wish.

yours e.t.c. ,

We will not support this resolution, a WAEC with thousands of apointed members is a laughable idea which will achieve nothing, and besides we do not like being told how to aportion our education spending. Our nation's revenues are its own and we will do with them as we wish.

yours e.t.c. ,

I concur. I don't like the thought of a WAEC with thousands of people. First, nothing will ever get done. There are too many different nations each with their own way of thinking. No curriculum will ever get set.

Also, to have a WAEC tell us how to run our schools is not in our nations best interest. Our schools work fine as they are. Our children receive top quality education. We don't want some committee tinkering with it and potentially breaking it.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Naturally, we are also opposed. The problem isn't that we think these standards are lovely. In fact, honestly, they match up, mostly, with our own. The problem is that, after careful consideration, we realized these standards cannot be applied to all nations of this assembly without alienating some, such as nations which have not sufficiently advanced far enough to have much of an understanding of science or ones that have advanced much farther and require far different educational standards just to meet the basic educational requirements of their level of scientific understanding. And then there's the nations we hear whispers of that use magic, who's existence is not known to us but whom we cannot automatically dismiss given some recent international events.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

We will not support this resolution, a WAEC with thousands of apointed members is a laughable idea which will achieve nothing, and besides we do not like being told how to aportion our education spending. Our nation's revenues are its own and we will do with them as we wish.
Is this striking endorsement of national sovereignty to be applied to all areas of public policy?

Ok. Then, can I suggest we should also pass a resolution requiring world peace within 24 hours. I figure it's ok to be iffy on the specifics.

Bear in mind that, thanks to the WA General Fund resolution, the WA now has funding available to it.

I mean no disrespect, but you are obviously ignorant of the debate during the Global Education Standards Act. The very essence of the pitfall was being specific. We requested that nations pay for this out of taxes, then from a "lottery" (which I had no part in), and no matter what we did, we couldn't reach a consensus. It was suggested by two nations involved in the debates that we exclude a specific form of funding.

I completely forgot that the WA General Fund bill was enacted. Come next morning, I will have a revised funding section. However, does the General Fund have enough money to contribute to this proposal? I'm not knowledgeable on the specifics of that bill.

Naturally, we are also opposed. The problem isn't that we think these standards are lovely. In fact, honestly, they match up, mostly, with our own. The problem is that, after careful consideration, we realized these standards cannot be applied to all nations of this assembly without alienating some, such as nations which have not sufficiently advanced far enough to have much of an understanding of science or ones that have advanced much farther and require far different educational standards just to meet the basic educational requirements of their level of scientific understanding. And then there's the nations we hear whispers of that use magic, who's existence is not known to us but whom we cannot automatically dismiss given some recent international events.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

Your worries aren't substantiated. In the realm of science, the mandate is that the nation only teaches what it deems the correct view of how the universe functions. In the case that one nation is not as advanced as the other (which is partly ludicrous, since they can get the research from more advanced nations), then their level of knowledge is acceptable. However, like I've mentioned, this isn't a realistic scenario. The science standard was written to make sure that religious views aren't muted. Also, this act mandates that education has to meet standards, not that it has to teach at the standard. Exceeding the standards is addressed in the proposal.

To the nations concerned about the WAEC, let me quell your concern. The job of the WAEC is not to write a curriculum. It's to come up with a general consensus on the average education level of each member nation. From there, certain standards are set. Your nation must meet these standards. By standards, I mean that if most of the world knows about a new theory or law, then your nation should also know about this new theory or law. However, the WAEC will not tell you how to teach about it. To those that mock the size, I point you to the very affiliation you are a member of. We seem to get things done, do we not? Further more, these consensuses are released every two years, but built on every day. That it plenty of time to work things out.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Is this striking endorsement of national sovereignty to be applied to all areas of public policy?



No, is the short answer honoured and respected Ambassador.

yours e.t.c. ,

Your worries aren't substantiated. In the realm of science, the mandate is that the nation only teaches what it deems the correct view of how the universe functions. In the case that one nation is not as advanced as the other (which is partly ludicrous, since they can get the research from more advanced nations), then their level of knowledge is acceptable. However, like I've mentioned, this isn't a realistic scenario. The science standard was written to make sure that religious views aren't muted. Also, this act mandates that education has to meet standards, not that it has to teach at the standard. Exceeding the standards is addressed in the proposal.

OOC: Okay, time to break character. There's a serious problem with this.

Part of the problem is that, in the realm of RP, it doesn't stand up. A nation getting technology from more advanced nations? My own was posting on the same thread as a nation that spans several star systems recently. The technological difference between my modern nation and their space civilization is the technological difference between the United States and a group of chimpanzees.

And, seriously, what average could we possibly get? We have nations that use magic mixed in with nations from 400 B.C., modern nations, post-modern nations, pre-modern nations, and nations who are so rediculously far advanced that they have ships that can shift between physical dimensions of the universe.

So, if my nation were to "get the research from more advanced nations," then right now it would have the technological might to blow your nation up from orbit while existing just slightly outside your nation's ability to perceive the existence of the ships. Which means my nation could raise the standards as much as it wants by simply eliminating the lower end of the spectrum. And my nation is not alone in ones that could realistically do that with borrowing the research.

Secondly, the idea of each nation creating those standards for themselves is in automatic contradiction with the first part, since many nations would define them in ways that would vary widely from the average standard and be forced to make adjustments. Not to mention that we would be including religious belief in the scientific category, which automatically is offensive to anyone who fully accepts the tenants of real science and possibly opening more cans of worms than most bait shops would be able to carry. By the very nature of this, you would potentially set up a case where someone would have to teach Evolution alongside Creationism, the idea that humans are aliens from other planets, and other such items that clearly are not in the area of science.

There's no way this could realistically work, from a practical viewpoint, using the very argument you give to defend it due simply to the amount of fighting and political maneuvering it would automatically create between varying levels of scientific advancement and between science, religious belief, and pure nutjob beliefs.

(OOC)
Part of the problem is that, in the realm of RP, it doesn't stand up. A nation getting technology from more advanced nations? My own was posting on the same thread as a nation that spans several star systems recently. The technological difference between my modern nation and their space civilization is the technological difference between the United States and a group of chimpanzees.
You're reading too much in to this game. We have a single organization of nations that span the entire universe, too. We coordinate relief aid (see WA Resolution #5) throughout the entire universe. We do many things that aren't at all realistic, because most of us are able to suspend our disbelief. I suggest that you learn how to suspend yours, else you are going to find that the entire game is illogical.

And, seriously, what average could we possibly get? We have nations that use magic mixed in with nations from 400 B.C., modern nations, post-modern nations, pre-modern nations, and nations who are so rediculously far advanced that they have ships that can shift between physical dimensions of the universe.
Again. Suspension of disbelief. I can ask the same question about relief aid. How do we possibly coordinate relief aid spanning million of light-years left, right, up, and down?

So, if my nation were to "get the research from more advanced nations," then right now it would have the technological might to blow your nation up from orbit while existing just slightly outside your nation's ability to perceive the existence of the ships. Which means my nation could raise the standards as much as it wants by simply eliminating the lower end of the spectrum. And my nation is not alone in ones that could realistically do that with borrowing the research.First of all, you're misunderstanding the difference between military science and civilian science. Civilian science would not research nuclear weaponry. Civilian science would research a cure for cancer. Military science would research nuclear weaponry, and wouldn't give it away, since that would be a huge breach of national defense.

Secondly, the idea of each nation creating those standards for themselves is in automatic contradiction with the first part, since many nations would define them in ways that would vary widely from the average standard and be forced to make adjustments. Not to mention that we would be including religious belief in the scientific category, which automatically is offensive to anyone who fully accepts the tenants of real science and possibly opening more cans of worms than most bait shops would be able to carry. By the very nature of this, you would potentially set up a case where someone would have to teach Evolution alongside Creationism, the idea that humans are aliens from other planets, and other such items that clearly are not in the area of science.You aren't understanding the meaning of average. If you have creationism on one side of the spectrum, and teleportation via synthetic wormholes on the other, neither are going to the be the average.

There's no way this could realistically work, from a practical viewpoint, using the very argument you give to defend it due simply to the amount of fighting and political maneuvering it would automatically create...I could say the same about coordinating relief aid. ;P

(OOC)

You're reading too much in to this game. We have a single organization of nations that span the entire universe, too. We coordinate relief aid (see WA Resolution #5) throughout the entire universe. We do many things that aren't at all realistic, because most of us are able to suspend our disbelief. I suggest that you learn how to suspend yours, else you are going to find that the entire game is illogical.


Again. Suspension of disbelief. I can ask the same question about relief aid. How do we possibly coordinate relief aid spanning million of light-years left, right, up, and down?

First of all, you're misunderstanding the difference between military science and civilian science. Civilian science would not research nuclear weaponry. Civilian science would research a cure for cancer. Military science would research nuclear weaponry, and wouldn't give it away, since that would be a huge breach of national defense.

You aren't understanding the meaning of average. If you have creationism on one side of the spectrum, and teleportation via synthetic wormholes on the other, neither are going to the be the average.

I could say the same about coordinating relief aid. ;P




Honoured Ambassador (O.O.C. i know you were out of character but this is an R.P. Forum so...) The point is not that this organisation cannot introduce norms and basic standards in whatever area the generality consent to, but rather that these standards must be subtle and flexible enough to provide for the vast array of civilisations which make up this body.


This is because every w.a. nation is effected equally by the laws the w.a passes. In a situation as everyday and practical as that of education it should be the care of those legislating for it to insure that in introducing standards based on the average national circumstances that they do not qualitatively or substantially harm the education systems of those nations which are not average.

Indeed this means that legislating for the "average" is pernicious and destructive in these circumstances.


The education system of the Empire of Urgench does not conform to that outlined in this statute and yet it is superior to it, we will oppose this resolution implacably if it is not radically rewritten.

yours e.t.c. ,

Honoured Ambassador (O.O.C. i know you were out of character but this is an R.P. Forum so...) The point is not that this organisation cannot introduce norms and basic standards in whatever area the generality consent to, but rather that these standards must be subtle and flexible enough to provide for the vast array of civilisations which make up this body.

This is because every w.a. nation is effected equally by the laws the w.a passes. In a situation as everyday and practical as that of education it should be the care of those legislating for it to insure that in introducing standards based on the average national circumstances that they do not qualitatively or substantially harm the education systems of those nations which are not average.

Indeed this means that legislating for the "average" is pernicious and destructive in these circumstances.


The education system of the Empire of Urgench does not conform to that outlined in this statute and yet it is superior to it, we will oppose this resolution implacably if it is not radically rewritten.

yours e.t.c. ,
The purpose of this legislation is to raise education quality. If a nation is above the average, then they have nothing to worry about. The only thing they have to do is ensure a free elementary education. The standards are a minimum, and it specifically says that nations can go above and beyond the average standard.

The standards are fairly flexible. The government chooses how it teaches science and literature. However, your citizens should be literate, and they should know about generally accepted scientific law. If there's a taboo theory, then they are free to teach it as an unacceptable theory. While this is detrimental, a bill wouldn't pass if it forced nations to be pro one thing, when they are clearly against it.

Mathematics is universal, so there's no problem there. Grammar is specific to each nation, because not all nations share the same language. In essence, grammar wouldn't be included in the process of the WAEC.

I am contemplating changing the title to Universal Primary Education Standards and Financing Act.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The purpose of this legislation is to raise education quality. If a nation is above the average, then they have nothing to worry about. The only thing they have to do is ensure a free elementary education. The standards are a minimum, and it specifically says that nations can go above and beyond the average standard.

The standards are fairly flexible. The government chooses how it teaches science and literature. Mathematics is universal, so there's no problem there. Grammar is specific to each nation, because not all nations share the same language. In essence, grammar wouldn't be included in the process of the WAEC.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes



Our government does not set a curriculum nor does it force preconceived "standards" on its people. Our people are empowered to follow their own path in the search for knowledge, we provide mass education settings should our people want them but the vast majority are funded in an individual way. We do not test our people against eachother or against some abstract standard, we test them against their own educational expectations and desires in order to help them acheive there own goals.

Under our system it would be impossible to apply these "elementary school " standards of this resolution.

Our people are not trained to become standardised drones fit only for exploitation by private business interests, they are encouraged to become intelligent, free thinking and individualsitic.

Oh and as to grammar, there are hundreds of languages in Urgench, and no state language or even a lingua franca, how would we organise teaching a curriculum in this subject were we forced to do so?


your e.t.c. ,

Our government does not set a curriculum nor does it force preconceived "standards" on its people. Our people are empowered to follow their own path in the search for knowledge, we provide mass education settings should our people want them but the vast majority are funded in an individual way. We do not test our people against eachother or against some abstract standard, we test them against their own educational expectations and desires in order to help them acheive there own goals.

Under our system it would be impossible to apply these "elementary school " standards of this resolution.

Our people are not trained to become standardised drones fit only for exploitation by private business interests, they are encouraged to become intelligent, free thinking and individualsitic.

Oh and as to grammar, there are hundreds of languages in Urgench, and no state language or even a lingua franca, how would we organise teaching a curriculum in this subject were we forced to do so?


your e.t.c. ,

I would imagine that you're in the minority. No bill can encompass the systems of every nation in the universe. I am not even going to try. There have been many resolutions that have been contrary to Glen-Rhodes, also. That is part of being in the World Assembly, Ambassador of Urgench.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

I would imagine that you're in the minority. No bill can encompass the systems of every nation in the universe. I am not even going to try. There have been many resolutions that have been contrary to Glen-Rhodes, also. That is part of being in the World Assembly, Ambassador of Urgench.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes


We do not care if we are in a minority, we care that our system is superior to that outlined in this rather narrow resolution based on faulty presumptions and primitive educational theories.

If this resolution is not dramatically changed we will oppose it absolutely.

We will not be forced by backward nations to accept some outmoded version of educational best practice.


yours e.t.c. ,

We do not care if we are in a minority, we care that our system is superior to that outlined in this rather narrow resolution based on faulty presumptions and primitive educational theories.

If this resolution is not dramatically changed we will oppose it absolutely.

We will not be forced by backward nations to accept some outmoded version of educational best practice.


yours e.t.c. ,

Let me ask you this: do your citizens study grammar, literature, mathematics, and science? Or, are they complete illiterate, ill-read, dull-brains that do not understand how to add 2 and 2, or that the universe is huge? The way you describe your education, they aren't. So, the only thing you will have to do is provide them a free education. It's quite simple, Ambassador.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Let me ask you this: do your citizens study grammar, literature, mathematics, and science? Or, are they complete illiterate, ill-read, dull-brains that do not understand how to add 2 and 2, or that the universe is huge? The way you describe your education, they aren't. So, the only thing you will have to do is provide them a free education. It's quite simple, Ambassador.

I don't think insults are the best way to handle this. I would oppose this simply because of the committee that would be created. Our people aren't illiterate or 'dull-brained' either. Quite the opposite. It's likely the same in Urgench as well.

Again, I stand with the Esteemed Ambassador from Urgench against this proposal as written.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

I don't think insults are the best way to handle this. I would oppose this simply because of the committee that would be created. Our people aren't illiterate or 'dull-brained' either. Quite the opposite. It's likely the same in Urgench as well.

Again, I stand with the Esteemed Ambassador from Urgench against this proposal as written.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas AmbassadorIt wasn't an insult at all. The Ambassador of Urgench hasn't even read the proposal. Had he read it, he would realize that all of his concerns are not substantiated. The WAEC doesn't write curriculum. It's doesn't change education systems. All it does is tell you what you should be teaching, not how you teach it. He is saying that this proposal would change his nation's education system, that it would somehow make it less superior. That's just flat out untrue, and shows me that he didn't even take the time to read what he's arguing about.

Furthermore, he continually says that I need to rewrite it. Does he expect me to read his mind? If he doesn't tell me what he wants, I cannot take it in to consideration. Right now, he's telling me to rewrite a proposal that he seems to be fundamentally against. I may be an Ambassador to a nation of half a billion people, but I'm no miracle worker.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

We are not opposed to this proposal in principle but the details are the problem. We think it is a good idea to get all WA nations to provide primary education. However the age for this education should be from 1/3 of the age of consent to 2/3 of the age of consent. Secondary education could be provided for this last third.

We dislike the subjects as well. The education should include basic literacy (reading and writing) and numeracy skills with member nations setting the levels for this education and what other subjects they wish to teach. (Of course other nations may leave all these choices to each individual school.)

We are against a standard for childhood education and the need for a WAEC to set an average. It will be in the interests of each member nation to have a good educated population and hopefully competition will push standards up over time.

Therefore if this proposal were less ambitious and set a lower minimum it might have greater support. Once it is passed it could be built on it to provide secondary education that includes grammar, mathematics, science and literature.

I hope you find these comments constructive and will give careful consideration to them.

The Republic of Macwick’s Ambassador to the WA

Let me ask you this: do your citizens study grammar, literature, mathematics, and science? Or, are they complete illiterate, ill-read, dull-brains that do not understand how to add 2 and 2, or that the universe is huge? The way you describe your education, they aren't. So, the only thing you will have to do is provide them a free education. It's quite simple, Ambassador.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes



The citizens of the Empire of Urgench, are likely some of the best educated persons anyone could wish to meet. Primarily this is because the government of the Emperor does not command them or coerce them en masse into being well educated.

We already provide our people a free education on a model which suits them individually honoured Ambassador. We will not submit them to testing in subjects and against standards set by the World Assembly, it would be entirely contrary to the central motivating theory of our nation's education system.

We should point out that the need for this testing would be instituted to insure our nation was in compliance with this resolution.


yours e.t.c. ,

Macwick;14048092']We are not opposed to this proposal in principle but the details are the problem. We think it is a good idea to get all WA nations to provide primary education. However the age for this education should be from 1/3 of the age of consent to 2/3 of the age of consent. Secondary education could be provided for this last third.

We dislike the subjects as well. The education should include basic literacy (reading and writing) and numeracy skills with member nations setting the levels for this education and what other subjects they wish to teach. (Of course other nations may leave all these choices to each individual school.)

We are against a standard for childhood education and the need for a WAEC to set an average. It will be in the interests of each member nation to have a good educated population and hopefully competition will push standards up over time.

Therefore if this proposal were less ambitious and set a lower minimum it might have greater support. Once it is passed it could be built on it to provide secondary education that includes grammar, mathematics, science and literature.

I hope you find these comments constructive and will give careful consideration to them.

The Republic of Macwick’s Ambassador to the WA

Could you explain the fraction ages of consent? I am unsure what you mean by this. If the age of consent is 18, then they would start primary education at 6 and end at 11? If so, that's acceptable. It's probably the better way of defining it, rather than using a nation's definition of child, since it is rather ambiguous. Here's a rewrite:
SUCH a standard for childhood education shall be defined as: a primary education that consists of grammar, mathematics, science and literature, and starts at 1/3 the age of consent of each separate WA member nation, and ends at 2/3 the age of consent of each separate WA member nation.

As for the subjects, we have included the very basic subjects of education. Reading, writing, mathematics, and science. Could you explain your opposition to including science?

The WAEC is absolutely needed, otherwise there would be no way to set a standard of education. We would have to call the proposal the Universal Education Duration and Financing Act. Without setting a standard, it would seem rather pointless to enact an education proposal at all.

As for starting out at a very basic level, and building up on it once it is passed: that's not feasible. Resolutions cannot be amended. They have to be repealed, then resubmitted. Most ambassadors do not even attend these debates. So, if they voted for this proposal, then saw that somebody was trying to repeal it... well, it would never happen. So, we have to be clear with what we want, and what we want are raised standards, so that our world can advance as a whole, and not just a few of the largest, richest nations.

The citizens of the Empire of Urgench, are likely some of the best educated persons anyone could wish to meet. Primarily this is because the government of the Emperor does not command them or coerce them en masse into being well educated.

We already provide our people a free education on a model which suits them individually honoured Ambassador. We will not submit them to testing in subjects and against standards set by the World Assembly, it would be entirely contrary to the central motivating theory of our nation's education system.

We should point out that the need for this testing would be instituted to insure our nation was in compliance with this resolution.


yours e.t.c. ,
Then, Ambassador, this proposal would not affect you at all. I don't quite grasp why you cannot understand that you can exceed the average standard. I simply do not. Every single one of your concerns is not at all substantiated. We are not calling for standardized testing. We are not calling for you to build elementary schools. We are not calling for you to change your system of education. All we are saying is that you must meet a certain level of knowledge. Urgench, as you've described, is well beyond any average standard. Urgench also already provides free education. So, like I said, this bill would barely affect Urgench, if affect it at all. What can you not understand about this?

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The WAEC doesn't write curriculum. It's doesn't change education systems. All it does is tell you what you should be teaching, not how you teach it. He is saying that this proposal would change his nation's education system, that it would somehow make it less superior. That's just flat out untrue, and shows me that he didn't even take the time to read what he's arguing about.

Which by telling me what I should be teaching IS effectively dictating my curriculum. If our five year olds learn calculus and read on what your nation may consider a college level, what business is it of some committee.

This committee is a bad idea as well. There are nations with varying levels of education level. One nation that claims superior education may pale in comparison next to a nation with a higher level of technology, but be truly superior next to a nation at the same technological level. Who truly decides what's best for educational purposes of the nation? The nation itself can make those choices. As long as they incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics.

Science, as you have described it, may not be considered 'science' to a nation, but rather 'religious'. They may not have 'science' according to another nation because they have banned it in accordance with their faith. So who determines what science is? This committee would apparently decide. Again, bad choice. This nation may be forced to start teaching what the committee determines science to be, thus destroying their educational system.

Why should this committee have the power? Why not place the requirements of determining what to teach on the shoulders of the individual nations, as long as they have the basic requirements of reading, writing, and mathematics, as the nation knows them? And leave a committee of literally 18,322* individuals out if it.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

*Last count of WA member nations. That's what you're asking for. A committee of THAT many people.

It is no good the respected Ambassador suggesting that we have not undertood or even read this resolution. It may be that the honoured Ambassador does not understand the implications of their own resolution but that is beside the point.

We do not insist that our people study any particular subjects at any point in their lives, it is therefore theoretically possible ( though practically extremely unusual ) that a citizen of Urgench may have chosen to be entirely ignorant of the rudiments of science while at the same time having worked towards being a master of music or a literary genius. Of course the opposite might also be possible. This person would have been offered all that the resources of the state could provide to help them study whatever they wished and would have been advised of the benefits of a mutiplicity of different areas of study, but may have chosen to sacrifice these other opportunities to concentrate themselves in one specific subject or discipline.
Of course they would be facilitated in deciding to change this situation when ever they wished and could redress the imbalance in their knowledge.

One of greatest Poets and Philosophers Tahmasp of Isfarain was utterly ignorant of any other language than Persian because he had devoted his life to the study and elaboration of the literature of that language. We imagine that his understanding of gravitation and geometry were fairly hazy too. Tahmasp was exceptional but not absolutely unique in this type of specialisation.

We feel that the basic subjects required by this resolution are unnecessary and proscriptive.

A requirement for a basic level of funding ( where a state can afford such and where a nation is not in dire crisis ) is indeed a good idea, but deciding how these funds should be spent is short-sighted and bound to fall foul of contrary national practice.

We would support a statute which asked states to properly fund their schools or other educational systems but not one which tells them they must make their children meet specific standards in specific subjects set by the w.a.

Does this make anything clearer about our position honoured Ambassador? Or will you once again insult us by telling us we have not read or understood this resolution?


yours e.t.c. ,

(OOC)

You're reading too much in to this game. We have a single organization of nations that span the entire universe, too. We coordinate relief aid (see WA Resolution #5) throughout the entire universe. We do many things that aren't at all realistic, because most of us are able to suspend our disbelief. I suggest that you learn how to suspend yours, else you are going to find that the entire game is illogical.

OOC: The problem isn't suspension of disbelief. The problem is that you outright say that any difference in technology level is absurd since nations can just trade technology and that you expect to get a set of standards that can apply to everyone from a massive range of technology levels, including nations that use magic instead of or alongside technology, and then expect every nation to be able to meet the absurd requirements of whatever requirements end up being the average, even if they end up impossible for most member nations to meet.

And, to further the absurdity, you outright suggest I cannot suspend my disbelief, despite the fact the only evidence you have is my challenge to the outright rediculous defense you put up for the absurdities within your own proposal. Nevermind the fact that my challenge to your defense comes from you suggesting that what I brought up isn't a problem, since people can always outright erase the separation between the different technology levels that the players put in place and which likely have been in place for years, with them being in place for a very good reason.

Again. Suspension of disbelief. I can ask the same question about relief aid. How do we possibly coordinate relief aid spanning million of light-years left, right, up, and down?

Establish that any relief aid shall come to a nation within itscapacity to use and benefit from it. That automatically solves all logistics and technological problems and it doesn't require people to breach the gap between technology levels to do it.

First of all, you're misunderstanding the difference between military science and civilian science. Civilian science would not research nuclear weaponry. Civilian science would research a cure for cancer. Military science would research nuclear weaponry, and wouldn't give it away, since that would be a huge breach of national defense.

And you're outright misunderstanding science. It wasn't military science that came up with the idea for and built the atomic bomb, created TNT, invented the gun, standardized gun construction so that guns could be mass-produced, or even discovered the airplane and figured out that it can be used for warfare. It was military science that discovered a lot of medicines, radar, and a few other items that have since become essential to civilian life.

The mere fact that you are separating science into two categories, categories that do not exist within science and do not even match up with how science operates in either part of the separation, while your proposal does not even attempt to do so suggests to me that the absurdities I noted earlier are only going to be compounded by the time I'm done with this post. I'm adding the above one to the list.

You aren't understanding the meaning of average. If you have creationism on one side of the spectrum, and teleportation via synthetic wormholes on the other, neither are going to the be the average.

This part is completely irrelevant to the challenge.

The proposal portion that gives partial rise to it:

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING, each separate WA member nation reserves the right to set their own standard above that which is defined in this Act, including, but not limited to, longer primary education, and more expanded curriculum.

The portions of your reply that gave rise to the majority:

The science standard was written to make sure that religious views aren't muted.

and

By standards, I mean that if most of the world knows about a new theory or law, then your nation should also know about this new theory or law. However, the WAEC will not tell you how to teach about it.

In addition, you did not address the offensiveness of teaching religion in science.

I could say the same about coordinating relief aid. ;P

And you would be wrong yet again.

I would like to start by thanking the Ambassador to the World Assembly, from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes for their consideration of our comments.

Could you explain the fraction ages of consent? I am unsure what you mean by this. If the age of consent is 18, then they would start primary education at 6 and end at 11? If so, that's acceptable. It's probably the better way of defining it, rather than using a nation's definition of child, since it is rather ambiguous. Here's a rewrite:

As for the subjects, we have included the very basic subjects of education. Reading, writing, mathematics, and science. Could you explain your opposition to including science?

The WAEC is absolutely needed, otherwise there would be no way to set a standard of education. We would have to call the proposal the Universal Education Duration and Financing Act. Without setting a standard, it would seem rather pointless to enact an education proposal at all.

As for starting out at a very basic level, and building up on it once it is passed: that's not feasible. Resolutions cannot be amended. They have to be repealed, then resubmitted. Most ambassadors do not even attend these debates. So, if they voted for this proposal, then saw that somebody was trying to repeal it... well, it would never happen. So, we have to be clear with what we want, and what we want are raised standards, so that our world can advance as a whole, and not just a few of the largest, richest nations.


The reason I suggested the age of consent and thirds is that in a previous discussion the age of consent was discussed with some nations having either very short or very long periods for these. I have therefore assumed that might have something to do with maturity and the length of their childhood. We have an age of consent of 15 so primary education would be about 5 to 10 (leaving secondary from 10 to 15).

I do not have an objection to science being taught just an objection to it having to be part of primary education. However I am not sure how good a child would be at the study of literature between 5 and 10 when they are learning to read. Or how could they can analyse literature and write meaningful things about it when they are learning to write?

I do not think that grammar, mathematics, science and literature are basic subjects but literacy (reading and writing) and numeracy are. I have less of an objection to grammar being compulsory.

Yes I do understand that the title would have to change. How about Universal Primary Education.

We have had had another idea you could have a clause that sets up a Primary Education Development Committee which could provide funds to Nations that do not provide Universal Primary Education to build schools and provide equipment.

The question of standards is fundamental. You want the WA to set them at the average and I want a free market, where the standard may be set by each nation, but it will be in the interests of every nation to improve their education standards so they can compete better in world trade. I agree with:


REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,


I was thinking that once there was Universal Primary Education, there could be Universal Secondary Education and Universal Tertiary Education. We might end up with an University Education proposal that might not be universal but might mean that it is available in every nation. I hope this makes it clear how it could be built on, without the need to any repeals.

I am not sure if such a proposal would gain the support of Urgench and Rutianas. I hope they will comment on these ideals?

The Republic of Macwick’s Ambassador to the WA

Macwick;14050202']I do not have an objection to science being taught just an objection to it having to be part of primary education. However I am not sure how good a child would be at the study of literature between 5 and 10 when they are learning to read. Or how could they can analyse literature and write meaningful things about it when they are learning to write?

I do not think that grammar, mathematics, science and literature are basic subjects but literacy (reading and writing) and numeracy are. I have less of an objection to grammar being compulsory.

This is the area that I take issue with. Science is the big one. A lot of our science that is taught in early education is the development of psionics. That may not be considered a science to some, but it is to us. We do not teach biology, chemistry, etc until a child is about ten or eleven. This is simply because our children, while they could understand the concepts, just do not have the motor skills necessary to perform any lab work for the classes.

A basic understanding of math is, in my mind, a necessity. I don't think it has to go beyond basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Reading and writing are critical in early education.

I was thinking that once there was Universal Primary Education, there could be Universal Secondary Education and Universal Tertiary Education. We might end up with an University Education proposal that might not be universal but might mean that it is available in every nation. I hope this makes it clear how it could be built on, without the need to any repeals.

I will not support any resolution that deals with secondary or tertiary education. This is simply because we do not have what is being referred to here as secondary education. There is one level of schooling for all of our children until the age of sixteen. We do have what is being referred to as tertiary, but we call it secondary.

Because of the different views on what is secondary education and tertiary education there should not be any resolution on three different stages of education. Some nations don't have three stages. Rutianas only has two. Another nation may have four, or five stages. Or even just one that encompasses every stage from birth to adulthood.

Which by telling me what I should be teaching IS effectively dictating my curriculum. If our five year olds learn calculus and read on what your nation may consider a college level, what business is it of some committee. The only business it is of the WAEC is that your nation is included in the averaging process. I've said at least ten times already that a nation can exceed the standards. Are you suggesting that illiterate nations be allowed to remain illiterate? Or that nations be allowed to remain unknowledgeable about mathematics, and be cheating in foreign trade? You seem to be saying that nations should not be conforming to a standard. If I am correct in what you're saying, I must say that it is the responsibility of advanced nations to help less advanced nations meet a certain standard. It is immoral to let third world nations stay third world nations, without attempting to help them advance.

This committee is a bad idea as well. There are nations with varying levels of education level. One nation that claims superior education may pale in comparison next to a nation with a higher level of technology, but be truly superior next to a nation at the same technological level. Who truly decides what's best for educational purposes of the nation? The nation itself can make those choices. As long as they incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics.All the WAEC would ask is that they incorporate the basic areas of study, at a certain level. If World War VII took place, then they should know about it. If they speak a popular language, and the rules of that language were changed, they should know about it.

Science, as you have described it, may not be considered 'science' to a nation, but rather 'religious'. They may not have 'science' according to another nation because they have banned it in accordance with their faith. So who determines what science is? This committee would apparently decide. Again, bad choice. This nation may be forced to start teaching what the committee determines science to be, thus destroying their educational system.This is not true at all, and this is about the third time I have addressed this. The WAEC does not tell a nation how to teach something. Let's take evolution, for an example. Let's say it was just discovered, and the WAEC mandated it as part of the standard. Glen-Rhodes would teach it as being the process of one species changing in to a new species through mutation and natural selection. A religious nation would teach it as their God deciding which mutations to occur, as part of his grand scheme. In the end, the basics of the theory are still being taught. A nation can even say that the theory is utterly wrong, as long as they teach the children what the theory is.

Why should this committee have the power? Why not place the requirements of determining what to teach on the shoulders of the individual nations, as long as they have the basic requirements of reading, writing, and mathematics, as the nation knows them? And leave a committee of literally 18,322* individuals out if it.Because standards are not static, they are dynamic. The scientific standard of today is not the scientific standard two years from now. If we let the nations choose what they teach, then we've written a resolution not worth passing. As for the number of individuals on the committee, the World Assembly functions efficiently, does it not? (OOC: Also, suspend your disbelief, please... for the sake of being able to propose ANY resolution, we need to ignore the fact that we have too many people to be able to work cohesively.)
It is no good the respected Ambassador suggesting that we have not undertood or even read this resolution. It may be that the honoured Ambassador does not understand the implications of their own resolution but that is beside the point.

We do not insist that our people study any particular subjects at any point in their lives, it is therefore theoretically possible ( though practically extremely unusual ) that a citizen of Urgench may have chosen to be entirely ignorant of the rudiments of science while at the same time having worked towards being a master of music or a literary genius. Of course the opposite might also be possible. This person would have been offered all that the resources of the state could provide to help them study whatever they wished and would have been advised of the benefits of a mutiplicity of different areas of study, but may have chosen to sacrifice these other opportunities to concentrate themselves in one specific subject or discipline.
Of course they would be facilitated in deciding to change this situation when ever they wished and could redress the imbalance in their knowledge.

One of greatest Poets and Philosophers Tahmasp of Isfarain was utterly ignorant of any other language than Persian because he had devoted his life to the study and elaboration of the literature of that language. We imagine that his understanding of gravitation and geometry were fairly hazy too. Tahmasp was exceptional but not absolutely unique in this type of specialisation.

We feel that the basic subjects required by this resolution are unnecessary and proscriptive.

A requirement for a basic level of funding ( where a state can afford such and where a nation is not in dire crisis ) is indeed a good idea, but deciding how these funds should be spent is short-sighted and bound to fall foul of contrary national practice.

We would support a statute which asked states to properly fund their schools or other educational systems but not one which tells them they must make their children meet specific standards in specific subjects set by the w.a.

Does this make anything clearer about our position honoured Ambassador? Or will you once again insult us by telling us we have not read or understood this resolution?


yours e.t.c. ,
Your education system is extremely confusing and unorthodox. In any process of writing a resolution, the writer can never fit extremes in to the proposal, as extremes are rarely the majority. I do hope you understand, Ambassador, that I will not put effort in to morphing a standards bill that fits perfectly with your education system. You will have to ultimately make some changes, if this proposal passes. In Glen-Rhodes, we have to completely overhaul our PoW regulations, due to the Prisoners of War Accord. We vehemently disagreed with the resolution, as it would strain our economy during wars, in which wars are already economically straining. However, it was passed with a majority. We do not always get what we want, Ambassador.
Macwick;14050202']I do not have an objection to science being taught just an objection to it having to be part of primary education. However I am not sure how good a child would be at the study of literature between 5 and 10 when they are learning to read. Or how could they can analyse literature and write meaningful things about it when they are learning to write?

I do not think that grammar, mathematics, science and literature are basic subjects but literacy (reading and writing) and numeracy are. I have less of an objection to grammar being compulsory."Grammar and literature" is the same thing as "reading and writing". For the sake of professionalism, I use "grammar and literature", as those are the proper names. Furthermore, the use of the word "analyze" does not mean that a child in the third year of education would be expected to deliver a college-level explication of a classic novel. They would be expected to understand what the premise of the book is. In Glen-Rhodes, children learn about analysis, as far as theme and meaning goes, in the fifth year of education. Before that, they simply must be able to know that that the book is about a cow sharing her apple with a pig.

Macwick;14050202']Yes I do understand that the title would have to change. How about Universal Primary Education. The Universal Primary Education Act? It seems broad, but certainly appropriate.

Macwick;14050202']We have had had another idea you could have a clause that sets up a Primary Education Development Committee which could provide funds to Nations that do not provide Universal Primary Education to build schools and provide equipment. Are you suggesting that the WAEC be replaced by a Primary Education Development Committee, or that such a committee be created in addition to the WAEC? Judging by your next comment:

Macwick;14050202']The question of standards is fundamental. You want the WA to set them at the average and I want a free market, where the standard may be set by each nation, but it will be in the interests of every nation to improve their education standards so they can compete better in world trade. you're suggesting that it replace the WAEC. Respectively, I refuse to concede a standard-setting committee. This proposal's primary goal is to set standards. However, since I have not yet met a person in this debate that it for primary science education, I am willing to concede it. However, I would much rather prefer a clause stating that science education can be substituted for religious education.


Macwick;14050202']I was thinking that once there was Universal Primary Education, there could be Universal Secondary Education and Universal Tertiary Education. We might end up with an University Education proposal that might not be universal but might mean that it is available in every nation. I hope this makes it clear how it could be built on, without the need to any repeals.If you wish to work me, or alone, on writing such proposals, you may. However, the Ambassador of Epigeal and I were met with many roadblocks when suggesting post-primary education mandates.
--------------------------------------------------------------
OOC: Forensatha: if I average 100 and 25, I get 62.5. I do not get 100, and I do not get 25. Do with that knowledge what you will. I refuse to write a lengthy petty argument about the transfer of technology, when this proposal is about primary education. 9 year olds are not going to need to know how to build nuclear weapons.

It is the fervent believe of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites that decisions regarding educational systems should be made at the lowest possible level. To that end, we vehemently oppose this attempt by the WA to usurp that authority.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

So the children of Urgench must become thoughtless and un-selfaware simply becasue you believe your own backward system should be applied across the World Assembly? An organisation comprised of thousands of totally different civilisations, with vastly differing levels of civilisation and technological developement, which fact the honoured Ambassador seems utterly ignorant of.

The honoured Ambassador's cultural chauvenism is based in rank ignorance and totall unawareness of this organisation's actual nature. The respected Ambassador should investigate the diversity of culture, developement, history, period in time, the variety of species and races e.t.c. , before they endeavour to paint us into some corner of unorthodoxy and long before they seek to insult the entire generality of this organisation with their regressive education policies which for many will constitute gross cultural vandalism.

yours e.t.c. ,

Perhaps we should make ourself clear. We are not actually looking for any specific provision for the education system of Urgench. We are asking the respected Ambassador to realise that the systems of governance and the theories that guide them of this organisation are so many and varied, so unique and complex, that a one size fits all policy toward education is almost impossible without encountering hundreds perhaps even thousands of objections of the kind we have made.

It is for this reason that we ask you to reconsider your resolution respected Ambassador.

Even the most superficial of investigations will show the respected Ambassador that this organisation is far too heterogeneous for the kind of system they are proposing.

yours e.t.c.,

Perhaps we should make ourself clear. We are not actually looking for any specific provision for the education system of Urgench. We are asking the respected Ambassador to realise that the systems of governance and the theories that guide them of this organisation are so many and varied, so unique and complex, that a one size fits all policy toward education is almost impossible without encountering hundreds perhaps even thousands of objections of the kind we have made.

It is for this reason that we ask you to reconsider your resolution respected Ambassador.

Even the most superficial of investigations will show the respected Ambassador that this organisation is far too heterogeneous for the kind of system they are proposing.

yours e.t.c.,

You keep speaking of systems. You keep saying that certain nations will regress. Both are untrue and unsubstantiated, like I’ve said many times before. No systems are mandated. No nations will regress. No opposing party has given a single substantiated reason for their opposition, aside from Flibbleites, who is fundamentally against a resolution of this nature.

We are in a circular argument, here. I will say one last time: nations who excel will not be forced to conform to this standard. Only nations who are sub-par will have to change. Is that not a good thing? Do you dare argue that promoting education is not a goal we should attempt to achieve?

We have the funding. We have the leniency to protect religious and otherwise non-agreeing views. What else is wrong, here? Propose a rewrite, if you think something is wrong. I do not understand all of this fuss, Ambassador. Everything is accounted for.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Okay, let's take a whack at this and see if it flies.

NOTICING that the educational standards of many member nations do not meet par with averages,

Whose averages? And what gives them the right to decide that a member state does not "measure up"?

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system that complies with average standards set by existing member nations,

Again, whose standards? I am not aware of any existing "average standards" agreed upon by anything resembling a majority of this body. I also have to wonder who gets to decide what is "organized".

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

No quibble there.

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:

I) MANDATE that every minor, as defined separately by each member nation, shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA average standards, which are to be compiled biennially by a World Assembly Education Committee (WAEC) composed of a representative of each WA member nation.

So, this is where the "average standards" are established - by a committee made up of tens of thousands of members? We probably shouldn't worry about this proposal then, because there is no way in the seven hells such an unwieldy committee could even decide what to have for lunch, much less "average standards" for education.

II) ESTABLISH a universal standard for education:

SUCH a standard for childhood education shall be defined as: a primary education that consists of grammar, mathematics, science and literature, and starts at an age deemed appropriate by each separate WA member nation, and ends when the child in question surpasses the qualification of a minor, as deemed appropriate by each separate WA member nation.

DEFINING grammar as the systems of language of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; science as the acceptable laws and theories of the WA member nation, that explain all aspects of the universe; and literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation.

We find this entire section to be excessively intrusive and micromanaging.

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING, each separate WA member nation reserves the right to set their own standard above that which is defined in this Act, including, but not limited to, longer primary education, and more expanded curriculum.

We find this acceptable....unfortunately, the rest of the proposal is not so lucky. Nor does this clause alleviate our concern with the rest of it. Mandating what standards we shall set for educating our children and then throwing us the sop of "letting" us add stuff to the WA hive mind curriculum really doesn't fly with us.

III) MANDATE that WA member nations ensure that primary education is provided free of direct cost to children.

Unfunded mandates get no support from us. We can pay for our own educational system, but there are nations who may have more difficulty with that. Unless you plan to shovel WA money along with the WA "average standards" you plan to shovel on every member state with this proposal, our vote would be an emphatic no. And frankly, we could think of much better ways to spend WA money than by forcing every member state to adopt a monolithic educational system developed by a massive overstuffed committee of bureaucrats.

So, it's a no for us.

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

You keep speaking of systems. You keep saying that certain nations will regress. Both are untrue and unsubstantiated, like I’ve said many times before. No systems are mandated. No nations will regress. No opposing party has given a single substantiated reason for their opposition, aside from Flibbleites, who is fundamentally against a resolution of this nature.

We are in a circular argument, here. I will say one last time: nations who excel will not be forced to conform to this standard. Only nations who are sub-par will have to change. Is that not a good thing? Do you dare argue that promoting education is not a goal we should attempt to achieve?

We have the funding. We have the leniency to protect religious and otherwise non-agreeing views. What else is wrong, here? Propose a rewrite, if you think something is wrong. I do not understand all of this fuss, Ambassador. Everything is accounted for.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes



It is with regret and no small amount of frustration that we must address the honoured Ambassador's incomprehension of the most basic facts about this organisation again.


How for instance is this "par" you speak of to be assessed? how would one compare a nation which did not use written language at all with one which did not use verbalised language? How would one compare a nation where it is historically normal for one species to do all physical labour while the another does all academic research with a nation which has a hive mind where all thinking is done collectively? how would one assess whether a land populous with talking dolphins was comparable with one peopled with ethereal spirits?

If the honoured Ambassador is not aware that this organisation is numerous with such nations then they will not get far in any legislative endeavour.

Further to this is it impossible for the respected Ambassador to conceive of any other way of educating children than in a way which makes it possible to test their progress against each other or against other arbitrary standards? Is it impossible to imagine that the kinds of states we mentioned above might find it impossible to apply such standards to their methods of education?


We have already stated that we have no problem with a resolution which would guarantee national spending levels based on national wealth levels or which promotes the concept of educational excellence within the context of what that might mean to individual states.

But thanking the honoured Ambassador for questioning what we might dare or not dare, we humbly suggest that the whole conceit of the resolution they propose is next to practically impossible to fullfill since it takes no account of actuall factual realities of the w.a.

yours e.t.c.

I would like to start by apologising for the delay in replying to the Ambassador to the World Assembly, from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes on his latest comments to our comments.


"Grammar and literature" is the same thing as "reading and writing". For the sake of professionalism, I use "grammar and literature", as those are the proper names. Furthermore, the use of the word "analyze" does not mean that a child in the third year of education would be expected to deliver a college-level explication of a classic novel. They would be expected to understand what the premise of the book is. In Glen-Rhodes, children learn about analysis, as far as theme and meaning goes, in the fifth year of education. Before that, they simply must be able to know that that the book is about a cow sharing her apple with a pig.

The Universal Primary Education Act? It seems broad, but certainly appropriate.

Are you suggesting that the WAEC be replaced by a Primary Education Development Committee, or that such a committee be created in addition to the WAEC? Judging by your next comment:

you're suggesting that it replace the WAEC. Respectively, I refuse to concede a standard-setting committee. This proposal's primary goal is to set standards. However, since I have not yet met a person in this debate that it for primary science education, I am willing to concede it. However, I would much rather prefer a clause stating that science education can be substituted for religious education.

If you wish to work me, or alone, on writing such proposals, you may. However, the Ambassador of Epigeal and I were met with many roadblocks when suggesting post-primary education mandates.

We must disagree with you when you equal "Grammar and literature" with "reading and writing" especially with your use of "analyze" in your definition. I looked up “grammar” and it stated it is: “the study of the way the sentences of a language are constructed; morphology and syntax.” Grammar is used in both writing and speaking and I couldn’t see a definition of “grammar” as “reading”. “Literature can be defined as:
“ 1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
Again I couldn’t see a definition of “literature” as “writing” only writings (a different thing).

Yes I was suggesting “that the WAEC be replaced by a Primary Education Development Committee” and we note your refusal to concede this. I think that a clause stating “that science education can be substituted for religious education” would cause some nations to oppose the resolution.

We note the ambassador from Rutianas’ comments.


I will not support any resolution that deals with secondary or tertiary education. This is simply because we do not have what is being referred to here as secondary education. There is one level of schooling for all of our children until the age of sixteen. We do have what is being referred to as tertiary, but we call it secondary.

Because of the different views on what is secondary education and tertiary education there should not be any resolution on three different stages of education. Some nations don't have three stages. Rutianas only has two. Another nation may have four, or five stages. Or even just one that encompasses every stage from birth to adulthood.

I am not sure that the name for the type of education is important. We had defined primary as the middle third of childhood and secondary as the last third of childhood. Tertiary would be between the end of childhood and university, which I think is the most problematic as I recognise that this stage might be covered by some nations in secondary. However it was never my intention to suggest that any nation had to have three stages of end, but only that once a first stage was recognised as a good thing, then an extension to this stage would be a good thing.

The Republic of Macwick’s Ambassador to the WA

After much debate, I have attempted to take the concerns of the participators in to question, when drafting a new version of this resolution. This version is much longer, and more thorough. It also provides more leniency. Please note, however, that the following 14 days are a holidays in Glen-Rhodes, and I am not permitted to do my duties during that time. (OOC: In other worlds, I'm moving across the country.) Also, I am not aware if it is against policy for a resolution to create more than one committee. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Universal Education Standards and Financing Act

NOTICING that the educational standards of many member nations do not meet par with averages,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member nations lack an organized educational system that complies with average standards set by existing member nations,

REALIZING that education promotes economic and social growth,

The World Assembly (WA) shall thus:
I) DEFINE ‘member nation’ as a nation that has adopted the World Assembly charter and has not been removed from the World Assembly.
DEFINE ‘member nations’ as a group made up of all entities in the World Assembly.
DEFINE ‘child’, for the sole purpose of this resolution, as a citizen between 1/3 and 2/3 the age of consent of the member nation they belong to. Such time shall be DEFINED as ‘childhood’, for the sole purpose of this resolution.
DEFINE ‘primary education’ has the series of educational courses a child must attend, until they no longer meet the requirements of a child.
DEFINE ‘standard’ as a minimum that must be met, or exceeded.

II) MANDATE that every child shall be provided a primary education that meets with WA average standards, which are to be compiled biennially by a committee.

III) ESTABLISH the World Assembly Education Committee (WAEC) composed of a representative of each WA member nation, to compile general averages of all member nations in the subjects of literature, composition, mathematics, and science or religion (per article IV, section c). Such averages will be comprised of the average score on standardized testing, if the member nation has such testing, or average achievement or success level.

a) SUCH a committee shall not have the authority to mandate or otherwise reconstruct any educational systems, beyond that of mandating aforementioned averages.

IV) ESTABLISH a universal standard for education:

a) SUCH a standard for childhood education shall be defined as: a primary education that consists of literature, composition, mathematics, and either science or religion, or both, per article IV, section c.

b) DEFINING composition as the systems of writing of the WA member nation; mathematics as the principles of numbers and their relations; science as the universally accepted laws that govern the universe; literature as the reading and analyzing of acceptable publications of each separate WA member nation; and religion as the theological theories, laws, and morals of the established WA member nation religion.

c) FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING, each separate WA member nation reserves the right to set their own standard above that which is defined in this Act, including, but not limited to, longer primary education, and more expanded curriculum.

d) EXTENDS the right of each WA member nation to reject the sciences, and substitute such courses for religious teaching, given that the WA member nation provides a state-sponsored religion.

e) PROHIBITS WA member nations from substituting science courses for religious courses, if the member nation does not have a state-sponsored religion. This is to prevent unsubstantiated rejection of science courses. Furthermore, it prohibits the teaching of one religion over another, should the government not have a state-sponsored religion.

f) PROHIBITS the teaching of science and religion in the same course. WA member nations are free to teach both subjects, but only separately.

V) MANDATE that funding for the Universal Education Standards and Financing Act come from the World Assembly General Funds. Funding is limited to the building of institutions, purchasing of new materials, establishing transportation, and other projects approved by a committee.

VI) ESTABLISH the World Assembly Education Funding Committee (WAEFC). Such a committee will be comprised of nonpartisan, nonaffiliated experts of education and finance, proportional to the World Assembly entity population by 100 committee members per every 10,000 entities, and will have the authroity to approve or reject funding as described in article V.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
How for instance is this "par" you speak of to be assessed? how would one compare a nation which did not use written language at all with one which did not use verbalised language? How would one compare a nation where it is historically normal for one species to do all physical labour while the another does all academic research with a nation which has a hive mind where all thinking is done collectively? how would one assess whether a land populous with talking dolphins was comparable with one peopled with ethereal spirits?
OOC: Don't respond this ICly, as this is my personal opinion. I don't honestly believe that anybody takes these fringe nations in to account when writing WA resolutions. The vast majority of WA participators are not talking dolphins, or collective brains. I'm not going to cater to fringe groups who do not extend an ounce of realism to anybody trying to play this game from a realistic viewpoint. It's a little hard for me to even suggest that those nations exist, but I do for the sake of avoiding hypocrisy. That said, I'm not even going to respond to any more of these claims.

"The elderly Khan Mongkha's face is ashen, and his hands quiver with the effort of self control, he breaths deeply and gradually becalms himself."



Respected Ambassador, we should point out that it is not the custom of Urgenchis to speak above a whisper and that is why we write our contributions to these debates, but this is one of those rare occasions when certain members of our delegacy wished they could indulge in the barbaric custom of bellowing.


The Ambassador should know that these nations they insult and call "Fringe" are responsible for a vast amount of all the legislation this organisation and its predecessor ever wrote, that they have more compassion and understanding of the Ambassador's poorly represented nation than they seem to be able to even conceive of and have been first amongst all nations to defend the rights of all beings human or not and in many cases have written laws which did not even functionally apply to their own people purely for the benefit of Human nations. The Ambassador's contempt for these nations is dispicable and utterly unworthy of a diplomat of a civilised nation.

The Ambassador's ignorance blinds them to the fact that even were they able to discount thousands of nations with non-human sapient populations they would still not be able to calculate an accurate "par" ( the use of a sporting term in this case being the mark of the ambassador's level of intelligence )which could fairly be expected to be met even by the human remnant of this organisation.

There are hundreds of nations in which the human inhabitants live lives akin to that of the early middle ages, some have a developement associated with the human iron or bronze ages, these nations number in the thousands their polar opposite are nations who's level of developement is vastly in advanec of the honoured Ambassador nation which are set in ages as yet eons to come these nations number in the thousands also.

If the honoured Ambassador imagines that any of these nations will submit to the idiocy of an average set for them by some hopelessly pointless committee then we imagine they have taken leave of their senses.

We will opose this resolution in this form with every fibre of our beings and we feel absolutely certain many many others will do also.

yours e.t.c. ,


O.O.C. Oh and this is an R.P. forum so i'll respend to you how i damn well wish.

OOC: Don't respond this ICly, as this is my personal opinion. I don't honestly believe that anybody takes these fringe nations in to account when writing WA resolutions. The vast majority of WA participators are not talking dolphins, or collective brains. I'm not going to cater to fringe groups who do not extend an ounce of realism to anybody trying to play this game from a realistic viewpoint. It's a little hard for me to even suggest that those nations exist, but I do for the sake of avoiding hypocrisy. That said, I'm not even going to respond to any more of these claims.

OOC: The last I checked, these "fringe" nations actually account for about half the nations of MS, given the active RPs as examples. If one half of the world is a fringe group, then maybe it's time to reexamine what you consider to be fringe.