NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm re-drafting my education standards proposal, but I'm unsure if one of my edits is actually legal or not.

III) ESTABLISH the World Assembly Education Committee (WAEC) composed of a representative of each region, limited to regions of which 3/5 of the member states are members of the WA, 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 (e.g. "grade point average").

What I'm unsure of is whether I would be able to limit such a committee the way I am. The rules don't really address getting in to specifics about committees, so I'm assuming that there's free reign, so long as specific nations are not mentioned?

No, you don't have "free reign" over committees; in normal circumstances, you can't even specify how many members they have. They are staffed by mystical beings with no national or regional affiliation whatsoever; they spring magically from the ground for the sole purpose of staffing these committees. So don't try to dictate the composition of your committee at all.

No, you don't have "free reign" over committees; in normal circumstances, you can't even specify how many members they have. They are staffed by mystical beings with no national or regional affiliation whatsoever; they spring magically from the ground for the sole purpose of staffing these committees. So don't try to dictate the composition of your committee at all.
It would certainly be easiest to just say that there's a committee, rather than saying what the composition is (composition was one of the problems with my proposal). But, I see the opponents taking that and turning it in to a question of how all nations are represented. Saying "they just are" doesn't seem to please anybody.

It would certainly be easiest to just say that there's a committee, rather than saying what the composition is (composition was one of the problems with my proposal). But, I see the opponents taking that and turning it in to a question of how all nations are represented. Saying "they just are" doesn't seem to please anybody.


Well why don't you simply dispense with the committee? It is a bad idea in any case.

yours e.t.c. ,

Well why don't you simply dispense with the committee? It is a bad idea in any case.

yours e.t.c. ,

When the Global Education Standards Act was being debated, opponents questioned how the WA would be able to tell if a country is meeting the standards. That created the WAVES (World Assembly Verification of Education Standards committee), which essentially had the same job as WAEC (World Assembly Education Committee) in my proposal.

So, to answer your question: if I get rid of the committee, the same problem that plagued the Global Education Standards Act will plague the Universal Education Act.

When the Global Education Standards Act was being debated, opponents questioned how the WA would be able to tell if a country is meeting the standards. That created the WAVES (World Assembly Verification of Education Standards committee), which essentially had the same job as WAEC (World Assembly Education Committee) in my proposal.

So, to answer your question: if I get rid of the committee, the same problem that plagued the Global Education Standards Act will plague the Universal Education Act.

That may not be a legitimate complaint, since all member nations are legally required to follow the resolution.It's not necessary to provide for enforcement. If there is ambiguity as to what following the resolution entails, then a better solution may be to remove that ambiguity rather than create a committee to decide on it.

When the Global Education Standards Act was being debated, opponents questioned how the WA would be able to tell if a country is meeting the standards. That created the WAVES (World Assembly Verification of Education Standards committee), which essentially had the same job as WAEC (World Assembly Education Committee) in my proposal.

So, to answer your question: if I get rid of the committee, the same problem that plagued the Global Education Standards Act will plague the Universal Education Act.


Goodness we hate to sound repetitive but why not change the approach? Instead of specific standards in specific subjects use another yardstick of minimum standards such as funding, teaching qualifications, educational setting, access to education e.t.c.

Many other approaches might prove far less difficult to implement and would have the merit of being less controversial.

yours e.t.c. ,

It would certainly be easiest to just say that there's a committee, rather than saying what the composition is (composition was one of the problems with my proposal). But, I see the opponents taking that and turning it in to a question of how all nations are represented. Saying "they just are" doesn't seem to please anybody.

To repeat, trying to specify the composition of the committee at all is illegal.

To repeat, trying to specify the composition of the committee at all is illegal.
This should be mentioned in the rules topic. Thanks for giving me a clear-cut answer, though. I appreciate it, and will direct all questioners to your post.

Goodness we hate to sound repetitive but why not change the approach? Instead of specific standards in specific subjects use another yardstick of minimum standards such as funding, teaching qualifications, educational setting, access to education e.t.c.

Many other approaches might prove far less difficult to implement and would have the merit of being less controversial.

yours e.t.c. ,

None of which ensure that any standard of education exists. But, we'll leave that to the proposal's topic.

the only illegal thing about that clause is that your not allowed to compose a committee with representatives of nations. they are to be created with magic (in all seriousness). you can't really regulate it too much. just say, that you create a committee that would oversee all this.. blah blah blah.

good luck..

Wachichi

This should be mentioned in the rules topic. Thanks for giving me a clear-cut answer, though. I appreciate it, and will direct all questioners to your post.



None of which ensure that any standard of education exists. But, we'll leave that to the proposal's topic.


Perhaps if ones conception of educational success is so narrow that the only possible manner of judging educational outcomes is through "standardised testing" or the even more obnoxious " grade point average" then yes this is true.

In fact making sure that all citizens have access to education by properly qualified teaching staff in properly funded education systems with well maintained premises in appropriate places and numbers has been shown to significantly improve educational outcomes but ignore that if you wish honoured Ambassador.

It is clear that honoured Ambassador does not actually have anything like educational best practice in mind or the efficacy of education to those undertaking it. The Honoured Ambassador is instead obsessed with testing countless billions of students to insure they meet the respected Ambassador's nation's rather unprepossessing sounding standards in certain specific subjects. Oh and creating pointless committees to oversee this policy of primitive mis-education.

How depressing.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Respected Ambassador from Glen-Rhodes,

i am very happy to hear that you are interested in bringing Education to the forfront of the WA. i have debated, created, and editted educational acts before which didn't pass due to my lack of TG campaigns. i have turned my attention to terrorism for now, but would love to work with you on education at any time. contact me if you are willing.. thank you. maybe we could merge both our educational plans?

Wachichi

Respected Ambassador from Glen-Rhodes,

i am very happy to hear that you are interested in bringing Education to the forfront of the WA. i have debated, created, and editted educational acts before which didn't pass due to my lack of TG campaigns. i have turned my attention to terrorism for now, but would love to work with you on education at any time. contact me if you are willing.. thank you. maybe we could merge both our educational plans?

Wachichi

That would be nice, but it seems you have PMs disabled?

This should be mentioned in the rules topic. Thanks for giving me a clear-cut answer, though. I appreciate it, and will direct all questioners to your post.

Creating Stuff
Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee.

I thought that was pretty clear, myself. My "at all" was an overstatement intended to stop you wasting time trying to fiddle with this, since what you seem to be trying to do is always going to be illegal under this rule.

I thought that was pretty clear, myself. My "at all" was an overstatement intended to stop you wasting time trying to fiddle with this, since what you seem to be trying to do is always going to be illegal under this rule.

That rule doesn't say anything about dictating the composition of committees, though. It just says that nations cannot sit on committees. If dictating composition is against the rules, then the rules on committees need to be updated.

What I had attempted to do was take representative of nations (which would be the imaginary people) and put them on the committee. Under a certain interpretation of that rule, that would be illegal because, in a way, nations are sitting on the committee. However, if I remove representatives and just said that the committee's size would be 1 person per every region, where 3/5 of the nations are WA members.. then I think that we're getting in to territory that the rules don't really address.

This now has to drop OOC.

That rule doesn't say anything about dictating the composition of committees, though. It just says that nations cannot sit on committees. If dictating composition is against the rules, then the rules on committees need to be updated.

What I had attempted to do was take representative of nations (which would be the imaginary people) and put them on the committee. Under a certain interpretation of that rule, that would be illegal because, in a way, nations are sitting on the committee.
In the only way that makes any sense in context. This is precisely what that rule is intended to suppress.

However, if I remove representatives and just said that the committee's size would be 1 person per every region, where 3/5 of the nations are WA members.. then I think that we're getting in to territory that the rules don't really address.
True, the legality of your proposal would become somewhat ambiguous at that point, but that's because the proposal itself becomes somewhat ambiguous. Is the membership supposed to be representing the region, which is what you're implying? If so, that's squarely back to having nations sitting on the committee, hence illegal. Is the membership supposed to be overseeing one region each? That would be legal, but it's micromanaging and not very smart when you consider the size of the Pacifics, for example.
Why is one member per (suitable) region appropriate?

As I understand it, the underlying axiom is "We don't get to roleplay WA committees. They did it once, and it was a bad idea." That's essentially what 'nations not sitting on the committee' means, and that's the rule which will get a proposal shot down with great vigour. While it's theoretically possible to lay out the membership of a committee without giving nations RP rights, I've never seen it done in a way and for a reason that wasn't a very bad idea.

That would be nice, but it seems you have PMs disabled?

what is PMs? i haven't disabled anything?

anyway, as long as the committee has a representatives of a nation or region, or just members of a nation, the person would act as a representative of the nation and region, which is against the rules.

just say that, a committee is formed by this act for.... whatever reasons.

Wachichi

what is PMs? i haven't disabled anything? PMs are private messages. To see if you have them disabled, go to your User CP -> Settings & Options -> Messaging & Notification -> Private Messaging. If the box "Enable Private Messaging" isn't checked, then PMs are disabled. Just click it and press "Save Changes" at the bottom of the page to enable them.