NationStates Jolt Archive

The Education Act

Believing that enhancing the educational systems in all member nations is a necessity for the good of the youth of the world.

Recognizing that each WA member has its own rights to provide education based on its own constituency’s needs,

Believing that an education of some sort should be provided to the youth of the world,

Realizing that the youth of the world should have some understanding of the world they live in, through the education they receive,

Acknowledging that WA members are all individual states and therefore can’t abide by one international education system,


In order to create a more efficient, educated, and better world,

Defines education as: the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life,


Hereby states:

1. All WA nations must create their own educational systems based on their region, culture, and traditions as a moral obligation to their youth, country and their future.

2. Acknowledges that every student must be educated to know how to:
a. Read, write and speak in those languages which will prove most useful to them.
b. Understand basic concepts such as Mathematics in order to solve financial, economic, or personal problems he or she may face in life.

3. The history of one’s language(s) and nation’s history must be taught to the youth of that country as it is crucial in any educational system.

4. All nations must create, and secure funding , and improve their own educational systems through whatever means available to them.

5. Educational systems that are or are not centralized are just as sufficient as long as it is proficient for the people it serves.

6. All nations must do all that is necessary to put the youth of their country first by insuring adequate education funds are available.

7. Banning an education of some sort is deeply condemned by the World Assembly and hereby illegal.

8. Neglect of a current or rising educational system is also deeply condemned by the World Assembly.

9. All governments whether in charge of their nation’s educational system or not should, as a moral obligation, must assist at improving the system (or lack there of) for the youth of their nation.

10. Every nation has a different interpretation of its own science or understanding of the world, and therefore has the right to endorse, and teach such beliefs.

11. No nation may impose its own educational system or beliefs upon another nation.

12. The World Assembly Education Development Committee is to be formed to have the authority to approve or reject applications for funding from WA nations who are experiencing difficulties in meeting the provisions of clauses1, 6 and 9. This financial aid to provide funds only for to the building of institutions and purchasing of teaching materials. The funding of this is to be provided from the World Assembly General Fund

note: this resolution, after undergoing much change, is going to go to vote to all regional delegates. please support this effort to bring education to the forefront of the WA.

look for it under the proposals.

This is the new bill i want to introduce. It made it based on welcomed criticism from my other General Education Act proposal.

it's a broader bill to help encompass all nations. I do however realize this resolution may not make everyone happy but will be glad to make amendments to it to gain more support.

Criticism is welcomed, especially from all those who helped me make this one through from criticism.

in other words.. feel free to destroy this proposal to the ground, like my last bill, it will only spawn a better more efficient bill. :D

i'm enthusiastic to get education to the forfront of the WA. I hope you all are too. thank you.

We do like the general tone and timbre of this resolution and we commend its authors for their commitment to this issue and their wisdom in being able to flexibly respond to the realities of education in the membership of this organisation.

For now we have one specific concern, this being Aknowledgement - " a. Read, write and speak in the language associated with that nation. " which our nation and perhaps others would not be able to comply with. This is because the Empire of Urgench has hundreds of languages, none of which are a "state" language and none of which is predominant or could be described as " associated " with our nation.

yours e.t.c. ,

Respected Ambassador, i have made changes to the mentioned clause above, and hope that it better accommodates your nation and it's educational needs.

Respected Ambassador of Wachichi

Education is something i think hasn't been addressed by the WA which i think is simple clean cut neglect for our youth in this virtual and entertaining world.

i love being so proactive and working to better this world. i was so happy to become delegate i decided education should be the first thing i tackle.

We thank the honoured Ambassador for their prompt response to our concerns, if we may be so bold as to suggest an alternative wording which may save the word count and allow for other inclusions and redactions it could read like this

"... and speak in any language which will prove most usefull to them " or words to this effect.

This wording has the benefit of tacitly encouraging the instruction of children in other tongues than that of their emmediate melieu without commanding it.

yours e.t.c. ,

i agree. such wording would make the specific language clause of this proposal a bit simpler and more direct
thank you. i will make the changes seeing that they are wise ones.

Respected Ambassador of Wachichi.

We might also suggest that this resolution could "Expect{s} all inhabitants of member states on completion of basic education ... " to have its stated minimums of achievement, this would make it clear what was expected of national governments without being overly specific about the method or time scale. This would be a replacement of " Aknowledging that every student should know how to..."

Would this be efficacious, honoured Amassador?

yours e.t.c. ,

The issue of minimums was the primary argument against the previous draft of this.

well i think that specifying and concentrating on things such as reading, writing, math, and speaking is important. individually naming them, in my opinion, would be better because any nation could create horrible standards for their people and abuse the education powers given to them. The purpose of this proposal was the help the youth of the world.

by voting for this every nation knows it should provide those specified minimums.

respected ambassador of Wachichi.

On our part these objections were really only because those minimums were tied to concepts of educational structure which are not universal. The term "basic education" could apply to an infinite array of sytems and since the expected minimums are just that "expected" ( in our suggested wording at least ) and not required they remain within the perview of national governments to assess rather than being assessed against imagined W.A. universal standards.

In our case the primary cause of complaint with previous versions of this resolution and others like it was an insistance upon "standards" in specific subjects of education.

We would be prepared to except the idea of assessing certain minimums on completion of "basic education" since that completion is determined autonomously by our citizens and not by the state. And in the process of meeting our citizens further education needs and goals we would find it easy to ask them to submit to an assessment of the basic minimums outlined in this resolution.

Of course this is as it applies to our system and not all. However as long as the language is kept sufficiently encompassing in nature we suspect that all systems of education will be able to be included by this resolution, the aims of which we have never actually challenged.


yours e.t.c,

okay, that seems like a fine reason, but all nations should, whether they do or not, have basic teachings of their language. should they not? that's the basic idea of mentioning the language part.

i hope i have your support on this bill. Everyone feel free to criticize.

respected ambassador from Wachichi.

We have five main languages. Granted, all children know these five languages by the time they are ten. They're able to read, write, and speak in them. No issue there.

On to the suggestions.

Article 3 mentions language again. Perhaps you should revise it to be 'language that is taught', or something like that. It could be open to interpretation otherwise that it's all languages that must be understood.

Article 7 might be altered to 'The banning of or refusing to provide an education is deeply condemned by the WA.' or something like that. Granted, they can't refuse to provide a child basic education if the Child Protection Act passes, but it'd be nice to have that in there.

You might consider taking the (or lack thereof) from Article 9. There's always someone that may take offense at that.

Article 11 should have some exception for foreign exchange students. With it reading that way, you may have a court somewhere stating that foreign exchange students leaving their country are still 'a part of the nation' and thus must be provided with an education exactly what they will have received. I know, it sounds ridiculous, but people will read what they want to read and not what's really there.

Also, I wouldn't have a year in the name. Considering some nations are in different years, it would make little sense to them. Just 'The Education Act' will suffice.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Well that depends honoured Ambassador, we agree that on completion of basic education all citizens of w.a. member states should have a basic comprehension of the things outlined in your resolution , that is different from saying all w.a. member nations should apply an abstract standard of "basic standards" in these subjects as assessed by the w.a.

Essentially our concern is that the w.a. could not ( for practical reasons) assess and apply basic standards, where member states can for themselves, and indeed the w.a. should not make this judgement for more political reasons.

You do have our support in this bill, as long as it leaves assessment of educational achievement in the hands of member states but requires them to adequately fund and facilitate this achievement and carry out the right research to make sure this achievement is being attained.

yours e.t.c.,

Let's run down the operational bits of this proposal.

1. All WA nations have the right to create their own educational systems based on their region, culture, and traditions.

6. All nations should do all that is necessary to put the youth of their country first by including adequate educational funds.

7. Banning an education of some sort is deeply condemned by the World Assembly.

8. Neglect of a current or rising educational system is also deeply condemned by the World Assembly.

9. All governments whether in charge of their nation’s educational system or not should as a moral obligation assist at improving the system (or lack there of) for the youth of their nation.

10. Every nation has a different interpretation of its own science or understanding of the world, and should therefore have the right to endorse, and teach such beliefs.

11. No nation can impose its own educational system or beliefs upon another nation.
Hmm. Doesn't actually do very much, does it? Three rights, two encouragements and two condemnations. Zero mandates. It doesn't say that a nation must provide an education in whatever form, for example, just that they're naughty if they don't. I don't disagree with the repeatedly stated principles, but the end result is only marginally worth the effort.

so some strongly language is necessary in your eyes? i'll see what i can do about it.

what it does is establish every countries rights, and obligations toward education instead of having one central educational system for all nations that can be very exclusive. i'll see what kind of language i can change to make it more mandatory in respect to education.

i also forgot to mention that i does mention that it's every nation must provide an educational system that provides the mentioned basics.

also the condemning of a lack of educational system or neglected system is mentioned in order to show that the WA doesn't approve of such things. Of course, in a virtual world like this, enforcing or punishment isn't a very plausible thing because there is not real enforcement of resolutions other than the WA guidelines..etc.

note i added some stronger languages in some places in order to try to address your stated problem.

Essentially our concern is that the w.a. could not ( for practical reasons) assess and apply basic standards, where member states can for themselves, and indeed the w.a. should not make this judgement for more political reasons.

We could not agree more with the most honored ambassador.

okay, that seems like a fine reason, but all nations should, whether they do or not, have basic teachings of their language. should they not? that's the basic idea of mentioning the language part.

i hope i have your support on this bill. Everyone feel free to criticize.

respected ambassador from Wachichi.

this was my response to him on his claim.

what it does is establish every countries rights, and obligations toward education instead of having one central educational system for all nations that can be very exclusive. i'll see what kind of language i can change to make it more mandatory in respect to education.
It establishes lots of rights, which give everyone a warm, fuzzy feeling, and precisely one obligation: to provide adequate funds. Everything else says "should" or "shouldn't", which is non-binding language.

i also forgot to mention that i does mention that it's every nation must provide an educational system that provides the mentioned basics.
No it doesn't. The only requirement is clause 6, providing funds.

also the condemning of a lack of educational system or neglected system is mentioned in order to show that the WA doesn't approve of such things. Of course, in a virtual world like this, enforcing or punishment isn't a very plausible thing because there is not real enforcement of resolutions other than the WA guidelines..etc.
"We condemn X" means "you're awfully naughty boys for doing X, but that's as far as we're going." "Member nations will not do X" means "Member nations will not do X". Period. Urging and condemning things are all very well when you just want to recommend something you think is or isn't a good idea, but they don't do anything themselves.

note i added some stronger languages in some places in order to try to address your stated problem.
Ah. I didn't see at least one of those on my re-read. One of the problems is that this is now laid out very chaotically. It looks like it's divided into several paragraphs justifying why this proposal is a good idea, followed by a bunch of numbered clauses which actually do stuff. Unfortunately there's something that looks like it's intended to be operational in the preamble, and something like a third of the operational clauses are actually justification. I think you need to divide it up more clearly.

Read clause 1, which states that all nations has the right to and must provide an educational system in the country.

i have changed the first condemnation to add that it's illegal to ban education. to easy your dislike of WA condemnations.

by stronger languages, i simply changed certain words, such as should, to must to emphasis a moral obligation.

anything else. your criticism will help make this proposal better for the world.


also the format of the proposal, is based on other past resolutions that i have read and used as a guideline to write this one. if you don't like the format maybe you should set up a resolution for all resolutions to follow a specific written guideline.

Read clause 1, which states that all nations has the right to and must provide an educational system in the country.
Sorry, my fault. I re-read as far as the word "right" and assumed the rest was fluff.

i have changed the first condemnation to add that it's illegal to ban education. to easy your dislike of WA condemnations.
Thank you. I'd rather you just banned it for much the same reasons as I misread clause 1, but that's your call.

by stronger languages, i simply changed certain words, such as should, to must to emphasis a moral obligation.
Again, thank you. Don't make the mistake of equating a moral obligation to do something with a mandated requirement to do it, though. Nations which really don't want to (for example) assist in improving their education system don't actually have to, even though the current draft says it's really important.

also the format of the proposal, is based on other past resolutions that i have read and used as a guideline to write this one. if you don't like the format maybe you should set up a resolution for all resolutions to follow a specific written guideline.
The format's just fine, it's the content that's got jumbled up.

I rewrite a year old piece of propositional legislation, and a hoard of half-baked education proposals are written in a matter of two weeks. Could we at least work together, delegates?

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

MYSEF, it would be great if you don't advertise your own bills on my proposal page. I need criticism to help improve it. but thank you for your support.

Respected Ambassador from Glen-Rhodes, i don't quite understand what you mean. this isn't the first educational bill proposed by myself. Through work with other delegates, I was able to greatly improve this one.(though some may argue this still needs work.)


Also respected Ambassador of Gobbannaen, you must realize, that i can make some vocabulary changes in order to make it more mandatory, but i also have to consider alienating many nations. I still need as much nations as possible to agree with the content of the proposal in the first place. I'll see what i can change but i won't make changes that might alienate specific nations. I want to try to make this bill as "all emcompassing" as possible.

Gobbannaen WA Mission,

i changed clause 1 by taking out the "right of" out and replaced by "must" in order to make the clause a bit more aggressive. I hope the changes are a bit less "fluffy" for you and gain your support.

any other criticism anyone?

Description: This resolution is to be put into effect by all WA members to help preserve or reform their educational systems.

Change to "Believing that preserving and reforming educational systems in all member nations is a necessity for the good of the children" or something similar. The wording of this one seems kinda off to me.

Recognizing that each WA member has its own rights to provide education based on its own constituency’s needs,

Believing that an education of some sort should be provided to the youth of the world,

Realizing that the youth of the world should have some understanding of the world they live in, through the education they receive.

I don't see anything objectionable within this section.

Acknowledging that every student must be educated to know how to:
a. Read, write and speak in any language which will prove most useful to them.
b. Understand basic concepts such as Mathematics in order to solve financial, economic, or personal problems he or she may face in life.

Remove "such as Mathematics" from this section? I do not think that an example is a necessity.

In order to create a more efficient, educated, and better world,

Defines education as: the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life,

Nice definition.

Hereby introduces this proposal to the World Assembly for vote stating:

Change to "Hereby states" instead.

1. All WA nations must create their own educational systems based on their region, culture, and traditions as a moral obligation to their youth, country and their future.

2. WA members are all individual states and therefore can’t abide by one international education system.

3. The understanding of one’s language and nation’s history is crucial in any educational system.

In #3, add "or languages" after "language" to solve any issues it will create.

4. Respecting all nation’s right to create, fund, and improve their own educational systems through whatever means they deem necessary.

5. An educational system that is or is not centralized is just as sufficient as long as it is proficient for the people it serves.

6. All nations must do all that is necessary to put the youth of their country first by including adequate educational funds.

7. Banning an education of some sort is deeply condemned by the World Assembly and hereby illegal.

8. Neglect of a current or rising educational system is also deeply condemned by the World Assembly.

9. All governments whether in charge of their nation’s educational system or not should as a moral obligation assist at improving the system (or lack there of) for the youth of their nation.

Add a comma after "should" and another one after "obligation" in #9.

10. Every nation has a different interpretation of its own science or understanding of the world, and should therefore have the right to endorse, and teach such beliefs.

11. No nation can impose its own educational system or beliefs upon another nation.

We question the inclusion of #11, since some nations would do so through conquering others. But, we do not believe it an item worthy of being opposed by us. As such, after some consideration, we are in support of this proposal.

MYSEF, it would be great if you don't advertise your own bills on my proposal page. I need criticism to help improve it. but thank you for your support.

Respected Ambassador from Glen-Rhodes, i don't quite understand what you mean. this isn't the first educational bill proposed by myself. Through work with other delegates, I was able to greatly improve this one.(though some may argue this still needs work.)


Also respected Ambassador of Gobbannaen, you must realize, that i can make some vocabulary changes in order to make it more mandatory, but i also have to consider alienating many nations. I still need as much nations as possible to agree with the content of the proposal in the first place. I'll see what i can change but i won't make changes that might alienate specific nations. I want to try to make this bill as "all emcompassing" as possible.




Indeed this resolution does need some more work honoured Ambassador but their delegacy's willingness to make use of criticism and adapt their resolution to the realities of this organisation make their resolution infinitely better in concept and much more likely to garner our support and that of other nations.

yours sincerely,

Respected Ambassador of Forensatha,

your help is deeply accepted. As for the Mathematics part, it think it's important to note that specifically math should be part of the curriculum.

also about your final note on this resolution in number 11, even though it might happen in the real world, no nation can invade another here. So i put that statement just to show that all nations are to have independent educational system of their choosing and not of anyone elses.

also, Respected Ambassador of Urgench, i thank you, i am making some changes in the language of the proposal. i am willing to constantly debate this resolution until it's fit to pass for vote.

We're allowed to disagree, Ambassador, that's why I'm putting the case for strong legislation. There's a balance to be struck, and far too many ambassadors around here push for proposals that are so watered down as to be worthless.

Anyway, I should really go through this in proper order to make some of the points I was trying to make earlier a bit clearer.

Description: This resolution is to be put into effect by all WA members to help preserve or reform their educational systems.
"Preserve or reform" seems like an odd combination. Maybe "enhance" would be better; I don't see it as pre-judging whether the basic education system needs reformation or not, and most people are up for making things better.

Recognizing that each WA member has its own rights to provide education based on its own constituency’s needs,
Again "its own rights" reads a bit oddly. "The right" would be more normal. I'm not sure I regard this as doing anything, so it's fine up here in the preamble. However, personally I reckon that it's a duty of members!

Believing that an education of some sort should be provided to the youth of the world,
No problem with this.

Realizing that the youth of the world should have some understanding of the world they live in, through the education they receive.
I'm not entirely convinced that the resolution really deals with this. Still, that's a mild objection at best.

Acknowledging that every student must be educated to know how to:
a. Read, write and speak in any language which will prove most useful to them.
b. Understand basic concepts such as Mathematics in order to solve financial, economic, or personal problems he or she may face in life.
Here I have a big problem. You say "must," but this is in the preamble. This makes for a contradiction as to whether this is legally binding. I suspect it would be a lot better off shifted down amongst the active clauses and rephrased a bit.

a) might read better as "in those languages which will prove most useful," perhaps?

b) reads oddly. I interpret it as meaning "Understand basic concepts in order to solve financial, economic or personal problems... Maths is one such concept." The trouble is, a single example, particularly one which has so much relevance to two of the three goals, sets your thinking off down just the one line. It also implies that language skills won't set you up to solve life, which I'd definitely contest. I'd suggest either adding a couple more example subjects, or dropping the example entirely.

In order to create a more efficient, educated, and better world,
No problem, again.

Defines education as: the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life,
Very nice definition, which jibes well with how we do things in Gobbannium.

Hereby introduces this proposal to the World Assembly for vote stating:
This is what I regard as the divider between the preamble, which justifies why we're doing this, and the operational bits, which are what we're doing. I don't personally like this wording much, since the proposal's been introducing itself for the last half page, but that's purely personal.

1. All WA nations must create their own educational systems based on their region, culture, and traditions as a moral obligation to their youth, country and their future.
This is now much clearer, thank you. Perhaps it would read a little better without the words "their own", but again that's a matter of taste.

2. WA members are all individual states and therefore can’t abide by one international education system.
This is a statement. It does nothing. It belongs up in the preamble, maybe rephrased a bit to fit the form of the surrounding clauses. All it's saying, after all, is "one size doesn't fit all," and that's something that has to be done by writing the active bits of the legislation right. Which you do, by and large!

3. The understanding of one’s language and nation’s history is crucial in any educational system.
Again, this is a statement, and does nothing. If you want native language and national history to be part of the curriculum, you have to explicitly say that nations must/should/might like to think about doing so.

4. Respecting all nation’s right to create, fund, and improve their own educational systems through whatever means they deem necessary.
This suddenly leaps into a different style, since it's a subordinate clause rather than a standalone sentence. If you want it to stay here, which it could quite validly do, switch it to "Respects all nations' rights..." I'm not entirely sure I agree with the idea, though I can't think of a killer reason to object. I'd also vastly prefer not to talk in terms of rights, but in terms of the WA forbidding itself to interfere with the creation and funding of national education systems. That has the advantage of making it crystal clear that future resolutions can't fiddle with that either. The "improve" part is a lot more problematic, as that could be construed as preventing any other education resolution passing, ever again. Which would be bad.

5. An educational system that is or is not centralized is just as sufficient as long as it is proficient for the people it serves.
Again, this is a statement, and does nothing. It probably does want to be turned into an active clause: "The WA doesn't care whether an education system is centralized or not," only more tactful than that.

6. All nations must do all that is necessary to put the youth of their country first by including adequate educational funds.
Fine. I'd rather switch the order myself, must ensure adequate funds in order to put youth first, that sort of thing. Again, that's just a matter of taste.

I have slightly more of a problem with "by including adequate education funds," which reads weirdly. It might help, particularly with some annoying nations that insist on doing everything by charity rather government (yes, I'm looking at you, Ambassador Sweynssen :) ), if you rephrased it as "by ensuring adequate education funds are available" or the like.

7. Banning an education of some sort is deeply condemned by the World Assembly and hereby illegal.
OK. I'm not keen on it being this way round, but OK.

8. Neglect of a current or rising educational system is also deeply condemned by the World Assembly.
It's a bit of a chocolate teapot, but it's probably unrealistic to expect stronger language here.

9. All governments whether in charge of their nation’s educational system or not should as a moral obligation assist at improving the system (or lack there of) for the youth of their nation.
Yeah, they should. Those that don't will carry right on not doing it, though.

10. Every nation has a different interpretation of its own science or understanding of the world, and should therefore have the right to endorse, and teach such beliefs.
If this didn't say "should" it would handily block the traditional flood of "You must teach Evolution/Creationism/Intelligent Design/Pastafarian Theory of Gravity" resolutions. As it stands, it does exactly nothing.

11. No nation can impose its own educational system or beliefs upon another nation.
"May" might be more technically correct than "can", but I'll give you a round of applause for this one all the same.

Respected Ambassador of Forensatha,

your help is deeply accepted. As for the Mathematics part, it think it's important to note that specifically math should be part of the curriculum.

I think my Mas... predecessor meant that an example is not needed. Because the importance of it is obvious. Oh, and it saves space.

also about your final note on this resolution in number 11, even though it might happen in the real world, no nation can invade another here. So i put that statement just to show that all nations are to have independent educational system of their choosing and not of anyone elses.

Um, I remember reading about a war that happened a few years ago. One nation ended up invading another because of something related to... rebels, I think. I know it involved nukes! Those are nasty weapons.

Temporary Diplomat Asuka Felna

OOC: You can invade, through roleplay.

Respected Ambassador of Gobbannaen WA Mission,

i have made some of the changes you've asked of the resolution. i didn't change everything, only the things i thought were manageable. i hope the changes were sufficient.

Respected Ambassador of Gobbannaen WA Mission,

i have made some of the changes you've asked of the resolution. i didn't change everything, only the things i thought were manageable. i hope the changes were sufficient.

Since you've taken on essentially none of the important points, no, it isn't.

what essential points? i changed most the the recommendations you asked for.

You didn't re-order anything, so we've still got that little bit of stealth legislation in the preamble and non-active statements in the operational part.

okay, i'll get to that, right away. i wasn't aware that was your primary concern.

i have made the changes in re organization. i hope they have met your standards. anything else you have a problem with?

i have made the changes in re organization. i hope they have met your standards. anything else you have a problem with?

A grocers' apostophe has crept in:

4. All nations’ must create, fund, and improve their own educational systems through whatever means they deem necessary.

Aside from that there are just the areas we've already agreed to disagree on.

i changed that. thank you for your criticism.

i updated the link to the vote for the proposal. please approve it!

This link will track the proposal as the queue changes:

http://www.nationstates.net/27678/page=UN_proposal1/match=education

The title doesn't have anything terribly uncommon in it, but luckily there's nothing ahead in the queue with "Education" in the title so I didn't have to get creative!

thank you very much. i will use that link instead of mine.

66 more approvals needed!

seeing that this didn't pass there has to be more flaws in it that can be corrected. i can't find out how though because i've made some many changes thanks to all your help. but what else can be amended?

Did the respected Ambassador carry out a proper T.G. campaign to advertise this resolution to regional delegates?

yours e.t.c. ,

It may just be that delegates aren't in a mood for an education resolution just now. It happens; you've done a fair job of not treading on toes, but sometimes it's just the wrong moment.

How close to quorum did you get?

i agree with the respected Ambassador above. it don't think it's the time because most delegates would rather vote on other issues. and education doesn't seem to be very popular right now. all in due time i will save the draft to send it up another time.

i did send out on telegrams campaign and the most votes i got was about 34 approvals. not close enough.

i will however not leave this behind and hopefully send it up to qurom some day.

thank you for all your help. i am now focusing on the Prevention of Terrorism Repeal and it's replacement the WA Counterterrorism Act.

Yikes. Only 34 approvals on the back of a TG campaign means its time to think of a different approach, not just redressing what's already written.

yea. i guess.

i have re-introduced in a final effort. look for it at the proposals list. if it passes then great. if it doesn't then we'll see and move on though i'll keep education in mind. and preserve the proposal for editing later. and i'll take a different direction at attacking this vital issue.

disregard all the links named here. but it's going up for the final time as it is. LETS GET IT PASSED!

It looks like its going to be tough to get it to quorum. It is still lacking support. I have sent out at least 25 telegrams to WA delegates and have received only 4-5 approvals from it.
The vote ends today, is there a way to extend the date?

It looks like its going to be tough to get it to quorum. It is still lacking support. I have sent out at least 25 telegrams to WA delegates and have received only 4-5 approvals from it.
The vote ends today, is there a way to extend the date?

There's no way to extend the date. No. If you've only sent out 25 telegrams, that leaves a lot of delegates unnotified. I never received one. You really can't rely on just 'at least 25 telegrams' to get something to quorum. When I was campaigning for the Child Protection Act, I had to have sent about 150 telegrams at least.

You can always put it back up in the list and send out more telegrams.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

It looks like its going to be tough to get it to quorum. It is still lacking support. I have sent out at least 25 telegrams to WA delegates and have received only 4-5 approvals from it.
The vote ends today, is there a way to extend the date?

In case you're wondering how many TGs you may need to send out, for the piracy resolution, I sent out 1005 telegrams (or from the As to the Ss) to reach 140ish approvals...and that's not including IM/IRC/regional forum campaigning.

Sara Mavenu
UN Rep for Mavenu

Indeed 25 telegrams is not enough. The current best practice seems to be to telegram all the delegates who approved the last resolution which reached quorum ( especially if that resolution was similar in spirit to the one which one is campaigning for ) , of course a more scatter gun approach may be taken which will involve notifying many hundreds or even thousands of delegates and though this may be time consuming it does have the advantage of creating a large reservoir of awareness of and hopefully good will towards the statute in question.

yours e.t.c. ,

Yeah, if you're going to submit a resolution, you really need to have no life for the next 3 days and TG like crazy. It's a sucky system but it's what we've got to work with.

lets hope for the best from my efforts.

Yeah, if you're going to submit a resolution, you really need to have no life for the next 3 days and TG like crazy. It's a sucky system but it's what we've got to work with.

Actually it works fairly well to weed out the crap. Admittedly there are times when it doesn't work (i.e. Max Barry Day, Promotion of Solar Panels) but most of the time it works fine.

well, seeing that it's 11:50 pm. here right now and the proposal only has 46 approvals, i guess it's over. maybe another time. thank you. i'll think up another way to propose this.

We like this resolution but we have a problem with the title could the ambassador for Wachichi remove “of 2008”?

We suggest that it might be improved by adding a clause that sets up an Education Development Committee which could provide funds to Nations that are poor or undeveloped to build schools and provide equipment.

Maybe worded:

“ESTABLISH the World Assembly Education Development Committee to have the authority to approve or reject applications for funding from WA nations who are experiencing difficulties in meeting the provisions of clauses1, 6 and 9. This financial aid to provide funds only for to the building of institutions and purchasing of teaching materials. The funding of this is to be provided from the World Assembly General Funds.”

I don’t know how close you were to the word limit?

I am a regional delegate and I didn’t get messaged, but approved it. I think that this needs to be tried again but with a better TG campaign. It might be useful to contact movers of passed resolutions to ask them if they have a list of who approved their proposal. I think it would be helpful to get some help with the TG campaign.

I am going to try a proposal, once it is passed I could help you with this one.

Yours

Tancred Richardson
The Republic of Macwick’s Ambassador to the W

I'm generally in agreement with these sentiments Waichichi and will be liokely to vote for it when it comes up to the WA

I will vote for it. Though Scravor is a tiny nation, we hold Education dear to our hearts.

You do seem to be approaching this topic with all the subtlety of a suicide bomber, so we'll offer some comments.

Your 11 substantive points adhere to no common pattern. They're just a series of barely related statements. Why are your 11 random opinions on education worthier of becoming formal law than mine? It would be bad enough if you held some particularly controversial policy opinions, but instead you seem to have neatly ducked any actual questions of policy. For example:
4. All nations must create, fund, and improve their own educational systems through whatever means they deem necessary.
Oh well, thanks for that. The world's education funding problems are solved!

If nations 'can' do this, they don't need a WA mandate to do so. But if they 'must' do it, it then makes no sense to add, in effect, 'howsoever they wish', inasmuch as choosing not to fund education is one obvious approach. This clause is absolutely meaningless: it has no legal force, and its only practical effect would be to inconvenience trying to pursue the dangerously radical and obviously silly business of trying to help poorer countries pay for their education systems. Why is it of such help to require that 'every student must be educated to know how to...Understand basic concepts such as Mathematics in order to solve financial, economic, or personal problems he or she may face in life' if their leaders are going to show so buck-dodging an example?
2. Acknowledges that every student must be educated to know how to:
a. Read, write and speak in those languages which will prove most useful to them.
This sets an extremely dangerous precedent, which we hope is only just avoided by the vague wording, supremely susceptible to legalistic abuse, of '[a]cknowledges that...must be'. But if implemented, it would extend globalisation from the workplace to the very tongues in our heads. Minority languages would die out, immigrant children wouldn't learn their own family's language, and subaltern groups would have their social capital drastically reduced. A language has a value that may exceed its practical utility, and to deny that in the name of education would be a form of sacrilege.
7. Banning an education of some sort is deeply condemned by the World Assembly and hereby illegal.
The definition of education you supply is not linked to formal institutions. Any process of imparting or acquiring any form of knowledge would qualify as education. Hence this clause would violate the Child Protection Act, as it would forbid a ban on child pornography. It would also make it illegal to pass laws against, for example, advertising illegal services. If a parent argued they were imparting knowledge with the business end of their belt, it would be difficult to justify stopping the education.
8. Neglect of a current or rising educational system is also deeply condemned by the World Assembly.
...and? What are we going to do about such neglect?
9. All governments whether in charge of their nation’s educational system or not should, as a moral obligation, assist at improving the system (or lack there of) for the youth of their nation.
Why is the world's governing body not similarly responsible?
10. Every nation has a different interpretation of its own science or understanding of the world, and therefore has the right to endorse, and teach such beliefs.
A nation does not have any interpretations. People have interpretations, and people make up the populations of nations.

Furthermore, amid the carcass-festooned wreck of that sentence lies the kernel of an idea that, if I'm dodging the fly-smothered bodies correctly, completely contradicts your clause 7. Either a nation is empowered to shape its own educational system, or it isn't. It can't express governmental precedences if it's the same time obliged to permit all possible educational systems. It would be like giving someone a tub of ice cream and locking them in the sauna.
11. No nation may impose its own educational system or beliefs upon another nation.
Pffft. Pffffsssst. Zrrrrsssssspp. And other silly noises. Then what was this entire proposal about? Slrrrzzzfffpp.

The above ignores the grammatical errors, the spelling error, the ambiguous or simply meaningless clauses, and the general uselessness of the preamble. I found my education proposals easier to get to quorum than my human rights proposals were, so it may be the resistance on this one isn't simply inertia in the delegate pool, but active resistance to the general shoddiness of your proposal, which needs vast, vast improvement.

Maybe you could start by saying, in a couple of sentences, what problem it is you wish to fix, or what aim you wish to accomplish, with your proposal. 'I want to write a proposal about education' would not qualify.

In short: hmmph! We will die a thousand times before see this proposal pass, and in the meantime, I'm off to eat Quäagen-Dãzs in the departmental steamroom.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Honoured Ambassador Benson is certainly clear about her objections to this resolution, this clarity does of course amount to outright rudeness and condescension which unfortunately disguises the value of some of what she says i.e. that this resolution does need more focus and vision.

However honoured Ambassador Benson's assertion that all w.a. statutory remedy applied by this organisation should constitute the imposition of one nation and its supporter's opinions on the entirety of this organisation is deeply flawed. Such an imposition should only take place where those nations seeking to impose their view are absolutely convinced of a completely unavoidable moral necessity to do so.

The issues this resolution seeks to deal with cannot be described as a moral imperative of quite the same order as abolition of slavery or ending forms of oppression which fundamentally undermine human freedom.

In this case the range of remedy in practice for the issue this resolution will deal with is so great and so full of debate that the imposition of one policy would be utterly foolish and short sighted. Neglecting the possibility of innovation, cultural uniqueness and unorthodox approach to this issue by imposing one policy to fit all would be monstrous folly and would meet with our complete opposition and no doubt that of many other member states of this organisation.

yours e.t.c. ,

Such an imposition should only take place where those nations seeking to impose their view are absolutely convinced of a completely unavoidable moral necessity to do so.Or when it's fun.

Or when it's fun.



The respected Ambassador may take pleasure in cultural or social chauvinism applied to the minutiae of international policy, we would rather content ourselves with less bloody sport.

yours e.t.c. ,

We seem to have drifted a little. (And please, I'm not an ambassador - I just work in the office). My point was that Wachichi is describing their particular educational views, and using the organ of the WA to attempt them. That is an imposition. They would be inappropriate, for example, in Quintessence of Dust. So it makes no sense for them, at the end of their proposal, to then caution against doing that. The clause should read 'No other nation may...'

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

We seem to have drifted a little. (And please, I'm not an ambassador - I just work in the office). My point was that Wachichi is describing their particular educational views, and using the organ of the WA to attempt them. That is an imposition. They would be inappropriate, for example, in Quintessence of Dust. So it makes no sense for them, at the end of their proposal, to then caution against doing that. The clause should read 'No other nation may...'

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria



Please forgive us Ms. Benson we forget your actual position since your manner betrays no awareness of the position of others.

What the honoured delegacy of Waichichi was attempting to do in the clause Ms. Benson thinks nonsensical was to guard against the imposition of any specific mode of education or educational theory on the member states of this organisation and indeed apart from promoting a well funded and universal education for the citizens of member states this resolution would not impose one view or theory of education on this organisation.

yours e.t.c.,

What the honoured delegacy of Waichichi was attempting to do in the clause Ms. Benson thinks nonsensical was to guard against the imposition of any specific mode of education or educational theory on the member states of this organisation and indeed apart from promoting a well funded and universal education for the citizens of member states this resolution would not impose one view or theory of education on this organisation.
1. That's a pretty big 'apart from'. (Or it would be, if the proposal actually did this.)

2. Yes, it would. For example, it prohibits from legislating against any form of education, and defines education as being any form of imparting any form of knowledge. This would void laws that prevent a stepfather from 'beating some sense' into a child, for example. It says that the most important language is that most useful to the child, not the language most situationally appropriate for the child. Thus, the proposal does impose one particular view.

-- Sam Benson

1. That's a pretty big 'apart from'. (Or it would be, if the proposal actually did this.)

2. Yes, it would. For example, it prohibits from legislating against any form of education, and defines education as being any form of imparting any form of knowledge. This would void laws that prevent a stepfather from 'beating some sense' into a child, for example. It says that the most important language is that most useful to the child, not the language most situationally appropriate for the child. Thus, the proposal does impose one particular view.

-- Sam Benson

And what would a "situationally appropriate language" consist in Ms. Benson? Indeed no such language exists, language as cultural collateral is beyond the reach of legislation despite the misguided beliefs of some sociologists.

The "apart from" is indeed large in some respects since it points out that this resolution is endeavouring to create a secured right to an education afforded by the state and not directly what form this education should take in all its particulars. Now there is no doubt that this resolution could be improved in this intent and made funtion more efficiently but to try to make it more micromanaging in nature would be foolish.

Oh and the beating of children would be covered by laws on physical assault not education and indeed this organisation already has firm laws against such acts.


yours e.t.c. ,

And what would a "situationally appropriate language" consist in Ms. Benson? Indeed no such language exists, language as cultural collateral is beyond the reach of legislation despite the misguided beliefs of some sociologists.
I can't give a definition, although I'm sure a professor in sociology could - I always had the greatest respect for members of that esteemed faculty, and wished I had the brains to pursue its study. But I could provide an example: the language of the family, or kingroup, or tribe, in a nation where another language is predominant. A different example might be the language of an immigrant.

A vote for this proposal is a vote for linguistic hegemony and neocolonialist barbarism.
The "apart from" is indeed large in some respects since it points out that this resolution is endeavouring to create a secured right to an education afforded by the state and not directly what form this education should take in all its particulars. Now there is no doubt that this resolution could be improved in this intent and made funtion more efficiently but to try to make it more micromanaging in nature would be foolish.
Don't call me foolish. And don't use the word 'micromanaging'. That is so 2005, like black shirts, and charity bracelets.

There is nothing wrong with detail. These details could include: helping poorer nations pay for education; describing educational priorities (such as literacy); an exchange system; research funding; an open access journal. As it stands, this proposal has no substance. It is a proposal 'about education' in that it uses that word in its title, but its author appears to have no interest in policy issues in education. I'd rather they not close off all legislative possibilities to those of us who are.
Oh and the beating of children would be covered by laws on physical assault not education and indeed this organisation already has firm laws against such acts.Which this proposal contradicts. A child does something. It is hit. It learns not to do said thing. It's just been educated.

-- Samantha Benson

I can't give a definition, although I'm sure a professor in sociology could - I always had the greatest respect for members of that esteemed faculty, and wished I had the brains to pursue its study. But I could provide an example: the language of the family, or kingroup, or tribe, in a nation where another language is predominant. A different example might be the language of an immigrant.

A vote for this proposal is a vote for linguistic hegemony and neocolonialist barbarism.

Don't call me foolish. And don't use the word 'micromanaging'. That is so 2005, like black shirts, and charity bracelets.

There is nothing wrong with detail. These details could include: helping poorer nations pay for education; describing educational priorities (such as literacy); an exchange system; research funding; an open access journal. As it stands, this proposal has no substance. It is a proposal 'about education' in that it uses that word in its title, but its author appears to have no interest in policy issues in education. I'd rather they not close off all legislative possibilities to those of us who are.
Which this proposal contradicts. A child does something. It is hit. It learns not to do said thing. It's just been educated.

-- Samantha Benson



We never called Ms. Benson foolish and we would thank her for never telling us what to do ever again.

A language of kingroup or anything comparable to it is a language of utility not a "culturally appropriate language" and would therefore be completely within the requirements of this resolution.

Reprimanding a child physically is not education it is punishment for wrongdoing, one of the objects of education is to prevent wrondoing in the first place not to punish it. No part of this resolution would allow any individual to assault a child and it is specious to suggest otherwise.


yours e.t.c. ,

A language of kingroup or anything comparable to it is a language of utility not a "culturally appropriate language" and would therefore be completely within the requirements of this resolution.
Nope, this proposal applies only to the 'most useful' language. In the example cited, the indigenous language is not the most useful language, which in most cases would be either the metropolitan language or, within an international context, English.
Reprimanding a child physically is not education it is punishment for wrongdoing, one of the objects of education is to prevent wrondoing in the first place not to punish it.
Again, forgive me for actually reading the proposal, but it clearly says:
Defines education as: the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge
Smack = bad is imparting general knowledge.

My problem isn't that this proposal might legalise child abuse. It's that it defines education in so vacuous a fashion as to be open to such an interpretation. The definition as it stands is essentially meaningless, and not a suitable basis for international law.

-- Sam Benson

Of course Ms. Benson we concede that the definition of education needs to be changed, indeed we have never claimed that this resolution is not in need of large scale re-drafting.

In fact clause 2 a specifies any languages which may prove most useful to them, this more than adequately covers any and all languages of utility to the child, their Kin-tongue being of vital everyday use to the child ( regardless of metropolitan usage ) this would be covered by the requirement of this clause. Perhaps Ms. Benson needs some further instruction in the comprehension of English in order to understand this. Under the provisions of clause 2 a of this resolution she would be fully guaranteed such instruction.

yours e.t.c. ,

You bore me. Bye.

You bore me. Bye.



Your boredom Ms. Benson arises from your dislike of being wrong, on the origins of your rudeness Ms. Benson we must only speculate.

God's speed Ms. Benson.

well thank you Urgench for your defending of the resolution. i have made some changes, and will look up a more suitable and less controversial definition of education. the problem is, a less controversial definition is usually a more limiting one. and that alienates members.

i'll see what i can do.

and ms. benson, i have added the committee for funding as you reccomended. hopefully we can come to a compromise of some sort. i apologize for not comming in the forum for a while, i had regional troubles but now it's all fixed and will work on this and my other resolution drafts.

Ambassador of Wachichi

A vote for this proposal is a vote for linguistic hegemony and neocolonialist barbarism.



There is nothing wrong with detail. These details could include: helping poorer nations pay for education; describing educational priorities (such as literacy); an exchange system; research funding; an open access journal. As it stands, this proposal has no substance. It is a proposal 'about education' in that it uses that word in its title, but its author appears to have no interest in policy issues in education. I'd rather they not close off all legislative possibilities to those of us who are.


-- Samantha Benson




The problem, Ms. Benson, is that your reasoning as evidenced above is lacking in consistent logic. In fact to complain of " cultural imperialism" while proposing that the w.a. should manipulate its member state's education systems by imposing arbitrary "educational priorities" ,which is cultural imperialism writ large, is ridiculously self contradictory.


Which is it Ms. Benson? The w.a. should impose your conception of education on the generality or it should aver cultural imperialism?

The "details" of this resolution should in our opinion not dictate how member states organise the provision or priorities of their education systems. It should instead ( and to some extent it does ) insure that no citizen of a member state of the w.a. be deprived of a well funded and universal system of education.

yours e.t.c. ,

does the committee part in the resolution have any objections?

?? it is unanimous?

does the committee part in the resolution have any objections?

?? it is unanimous?

How about giving people more than 2 hours to respond?

no no. it was a follow up just to make sure. i didn't expect a response for a long time.

The problem, Ms. Benson, is that your reasoning as evidenced above is lacking in consistent logic. In fact to complain of " cultural imperialism" while proposing that the w.a. should manipulate its member state's education systems by imposing arbitrary "educational priorities" ,which is cultural imperialism writ large, is ridiculously self contradictory.

Which is it Ms. Benson? The w.a. should impose your conception of education on the generality or it should aver cultural imperialism?
You misunderstand.

When I invoke 'cultural imperialism', I am doing so to justify opposition to things with which my nation disagrees.

When I suggest the proposal needs more detail, I am only referring to things my nation would agree with.

It's very simple, really.

On the committee: whatever. What about all the other objections?

-- Sam Benson

You misunderstand.

When I invoke 'cultural imperialism', I am doing so to justify opposition to things with which my nation disagrees.

When I suggest the proposal needs more detail, I am only referring to things my nation would agree with.

It's very simple, really.

On the committee: whatever. What about all the other objections?

-- Sam Benson



Ah so Ms. Benson is merely trying to be comical. So far that was unclear but with her prompting it is easy to see that her recent contributions to this debate have been a a joke.

We should say that if Ms. Benson is intent on waisting this organisation's time with jocularity she should probably do so in such a way which is actually funny and does not create the impression that Ms. Benson and the honoured delegacy of Quintessence of dust are rank hypocrites.


yours in sincerity

well, Ms. benson, i have followed up with some of your requests though i have to make a compromise. i generally agree with most of Urgench's arguments for not changing many of the things you asked for. anyway, most of your changes weren't changes at all, just you being critical without any real replacements or anything. so i am limited as to what i can change. Urgench and others, the committee?

We are ambivalent about a committee, we do not like the idea of a w.a. committee staffed by gnomes having a say on educational policy, and we imagine the end result would be educational harmonisation within the membership of w.a. However as long as the committee's terms of reference and powers are strictly delineated and curtailed then we can imagine still being able to support its introduction


yours e.t.c. ,

Ah so Ms. Benson is merely trying to be comical. So far that was unclear but with her prompting it is easy to see that her recent contributions to this debate have been a a joke.

We should say that if Ms. Benson is intent on waisting [sic] this organisation's time with jocularity she should probably do so in such a way which is actually funny and does not create the impression that Ms. Benson and the honoured delegacy of Quintessence of dust are rank hypocrites.
I'm not joking.

How is my position any different from yours? You have advocated changing national marriage policies. Yet you consider changing national educational policies a gross violation of national sovereignty. And you are not alone. The ambassador of The Narnian Council, with whom you share many characteristics, advocated changing national judicial systems, but balked at changing national laws on sexual conduct (and on not stoning gays to death). The ambassador of Gobbannium sees fit to advocate WA meddling in all manner of national policies, except those relating to trade policy. I recall a past representative who advocated copyright enforcement, yet felt banning torture was an imposition.

Most nations accept WA influence in some areas, and not in others. Educational policy is one where we think the WA has a role to play. In suggesting there are other areas - such as national languages - where the WA should stay out, we may be inconsistent, but no more so than any other nation within this Assembly.

To the representative of Wachichi: maybe you could at try to respond to my points?

-- Samantha Benson

I'm not joking.

How is my position any different from yours? You have advocated changing national marriage policies. Yet you consider changing national educational policies a gross violation of national sovereignty. And you are not alone. The ambassador of The Narnian Council, with whom you share many characteristics, advocated changing national judicial systems, but balked at changing national laws on sexual conduct (and on not stoning gays to death). The ambassador of Gobbannium sees fit to advocate WA meddling in all manner of national policies, except those relating to trade policy. I recall a past representative who advocated copyright enforcement, yet felt banning torture was an imposition.

Most nations accept WA influence in some areas, and not in others. Educational policy is one where we think the WA has a role to play. In suggesting there are other areas - such as national languages - where the WA should stay out, we may be inconsistent, but no more so than any other nation within this Assembly.

To the representative of Wachichi: maybe you could at try to respond to my points?

-- Samantha Benson




Ms. Benson there is no reason to resort to insults and pernicious comparisons.

We should point out that our position on w.a. legislation has been completely consistent since the passage of Fair Criminal Trial. Our position is motivated by a desire to protect and promote individual human autonomy and the promotion of peace and harmony between nations.

Consideration of national sovereignty is an idiom we are occasionally forced to employ to make our point because the cult of the State Inviolate is so prevalent in this organisation. But our objections to certain laws have really only ever been ones related to the desire to protect basic human freedoms which we are always at pains to point out. Where we talk of national sovereignty it is because such sovereignty will accord with the promotion of human freedom , where we advocate the abrogation of national prerogative it is for the sake of the same cause.


yours e.t.c.,

The ambassador of Gobbannium sees fit to advocate WA meddling in all manner of national policies, except those relating to trade policy.

It's not that we're against the WA meddling in trade policy per se, it's just that I think 99% of the trade measures I've seen go past are wrong. Which amounts to the same thing, so I'll shut up now.

what points exactly do you want me to answer? most of your points are too mixed in with your own emotions getting in the way.

Urgench, the committee only in charge of sending WA funding to countries who can't afford it, until they can. it has no power to change educational systems. of course if this does pass, then countries will have to abide by it's already mentioned rules.

I like the idea of having an educational system based on my religion and country. good idea.

no problem. i changed it many times in order to better encompass all possible countries in the WA

what points exactly do you want me to answer? most of your points are too mixed in with your own emotions getting in the way.

Urgench, the committee only in charge of sending WA funding to countries who can't afford it, until they can. it has no power to change educational systems. of course if this does pass, then countries will have to abide by it's already mentioned rules.



Indeed and we will make no complaint of the committee as it stands. The use it will be put to seems just and fair.

We hope that the not so tender mercies of the advice or criticism of his excellency Mongkha Khan of Kashgar have not misled the honoured delegation of Wachichi as to Urgench's possible support for this resolution. Indeed the Government of the Emperor of Urgench is disposed to be highly in favour of it should its final draft be of satisfactory quality. We commend the honoured Ambassador for Wachichi for their continued commitment to this issue.

yours sincerely,

i am also glad to be working on the issue. i also noticed that since our efforts, there have been many proposal concerning education proposed for approval as we speak. i hope i was able to inspire some to work on education too. i however, do believe that some of the proposals do have flaws because they don't tackle things that i tackle but their efforts are appriecated none the less.

i am also glad to be working on the issue. i also noticed that since our efforts, there have been many proposal concerning education proposed for approval as we speak. i hope i was able to inspire some to work on education too. i however, do believe that some of the proposals do have flaws because they don't tackle things that i tackle but their efforts are appriecated none the less.



Most end up being referred to the list of silly and illegal proposals, it would be our hope that were this resolution ever to be passed that such sub-standard offerings would diminish, a hope we imagine will never be realised but none the less...

yours,

i hope so too.

Well, I'll tell you. We had our national government involved with education and it was a nightmare. We found that the people of our nation were more than capable of ensuring their children were getting a sufficient education through private means, be they charitable organizations, private corporations, cooperative groups, or simply individual family practice, than they ever received from the oversight and bureaucracy generated by national control.

More government is not always the answer, and forcing nations of the WA to insert bureaucracy into an otherwise working situation... well.. that's forcing a fix to something that isn't broken in someone else's home.

Respectfully submitted,
CSMDAD

Well, I'll tell you. We had our national government involved with education and it was a nightmare. We found that the people of our nation were more than capable of ensuring their children were getting a sufficient education through private means, be they charitable organizations, private corporations, cooperative groups, or simply individual family practice, than they ever received from the oversight and bureaucracy generated by national control.

More government is not always the answer, and forcing nations of the WA to insert bureaucracy into an otherwise working situation... well.. that's forcing a fix to something that isn't broken in someone else's home.

Respectfully submitted,
CSMDAD



Perhaps the honoured Ambassador should read this resolution and the thread which formulated it before posting. This resolution specifically does not require that education be provided by any particular means, merely that governments insure that a a basic standard of education actually is available to their citizens. This means education by any means honoured Ambassador not specifically of a state run nature.

yours e.t.c. ,

Perhaps the honoured Ambassador should read this resolution and the thread which formulated it before posting. This resolution specifically does not require that education be provided by any particular means, merely that governments insure that a a basic standard of education actually is available to their citizens. This means education by any means honoured Ambassador not specifically of a state run nature.

yours e.t.c. ,

Dear sir,

Thank you for your concern, but let me assure you that I did, indeed, read the entire resolution before opening my mouth.

You state,
This resolution specifically does not require that education be provided by any particular means, merely that governments insure that a a (sic) basic standard of education actually is available to their citizens.

I would like to return your attention to the following provisions:

1. All WA nations must create their own educational systems based on their region, culture, and traditions as a moral obligation to their youth, country and their future.
4. All nations must create, fund, and improve their own educational systems through whatever means available to them.
6. All nations must do all that is necessary to put the youth of their country first by insuring adequate education funds are available.

Let me ask you this, sir, how can we expect a government to create, fund, improve without then having a vested interest in the bureaucracy thereof? How can you mandate the government bureaucracy and then say, "not specifically of a state run nature"?!? This resolution MANDATES the nation to create fund and improve it!

Beyond that, even if under this system it allowed for a completely private system, you expect the government to it in section 6. If you are advocating that governments should fund items of a private nature without any oversight or bureaucracy involved, I offer your country a few bank accounts to which you are more than welcome to make deposits.


7. Banning an education of some sort is deeply condemned by the World Assembly and hereby illegal.
So is it by virtue of being "deeply condemned by the WA" that it is "hereby illegal"?

8. Neglect of a current or rising educational system is also deeply condemned by the World Assembly.
Why is this "deeply condemned" act of a lesser status than that which was just declared illegal?

The list goes on and on, sir. Section 9 again states that the government has a moral obligation to get involved.

Then, as a contradictory twist, we say that no nation shall impose its educational beliefs on another nation. Isn't that what this bill is doing? We are nations who are about to tell other nations that they have moral obligations to take steps in a particular direction for education?


Thank you for double checking that I'm doing my job. I don't know what I'd do without you. I HAVE read the resolution, sir. Perhaps I can return the favor and ask you to do the same.

It was asked that input be provided. Our input is that this resolution is not needed legislation and our stance is that more government involvement into the matter does more harm than good.

Dear sir,

Thank you for your concern, but let me assure you that I did, indeed, read the entire resolution before opening my mouth.

You state,


I would like to return your attention to the following provisions:





Let me ask you this, sir, how can we expect a government to create, fund, improve without then having a vested interest in the bureaucracy thereof? How can you mandate the government bureaucracy and then say, "not specifically of a state run nature"?!? This resolution MANDATES the nation to create fund and improve it!

Beyond that, even if under this system it allowed for a completely private system, you expect the government to it in section 6. If you are advocating that governments should fund items of a private nature without any oversight or bureaucracy involved, I offer your country a few bank accounts to which you are more than welcome to make deposits.



So is it by virtue of being "deeply condemned by the WA" that it is "hereby illegal"?


Why is this "deeply condemned" act of a lesser status than that which was just declared illegal?

The list goes on and on, sir. Section 9 again states that the government has a moral obligation to get involved.

Then, as a contradictory twist, we say that no nation shall impose its educational beliefs on another nation. Isn't that what this bill is doing? We are nations who are about to tell other nations that they have moral obligations to take steps in a particular direction for education?


Thank you for double checking that I'm doing my job. I don't know what I'd do without you. I HAVE read the resolution, sir. Perhaps I can return the favor and ask you to do the same.

It was asked that input be provided. Our input is that this resolution is not needed legislation and our stance is that more government involvement into the matter does more harm than good.



All of these objections are based on faulty interpretation of the wording of this bill.

To begin with this resolution does not in any place specify where funding should be obtained for the financing of member states education systems. We admit that in certain lights the provision that simply states that nations must "fund" their education systems could be misread and our suggestion was always that it should say "must secure funding for..." but this meaning may still be read as written.

In fact plenty of states operate their services on a system of public-private partnership ( we do not but some do ) where the government offers contracts to private concerns to run all or part of a government service. The state can benefit by moving the responsibility for the creation, funding, and improvement of a service (and its bureaucracy ) onto the backs of these private concerns whilst insuring these minimums are met by retaining the right to nullify the contracts and either offer them to other companies or to take the service back into government control.

This public-private partnership model would be perfectly in compliance with this resolution. What the respected Ambassador for Csmdad seems to be advocating is a system in which the government has absolutely no responsibility to secure some form of basic standard of education whatsoever.
That would not be in compliance with this resolution. Why shouldn't states be morally obligated to insure a basic education to their citizens by what ever means seems beat to them?

We have no position on the honoured Ambassador's final points about other sections of this bill. We imagine the authors of this statute will see fit to respond to them in time.


yours e.t.c. ,

respected Ambassador of Csmdad,

i would like to respond to your points by taking your attention to the definition of "education". the definition, and therfore the resolution, never actually mandates nation's governments set up a beurocractic system of education. as for the funding, i will make the changes.

also, note that this bill has been changed much to meet the different needs of many different nations in order to try to emcompass all kinds of nations and their geographies...etc.

revising the defintion of education in my resolution should clear up most of your educational objections, like the banning and all that. plz tell me if you have any more problems with the resolution

i hope i have cleared any objections.

when should i introduce this act? perhaps now isn't the time since i am introducing a whole bunch of other stuff.

One at a time would seem most sensible honoured Ambassador.


yours sincerely,

agreed.